Heidi Heitkamp

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, most of the country watched with a great deal of interest right before the new year, when we unfortunately had a train derailment in Casselton, ND. What was unique about this train derailment was that the train that derailed subsequently derailed another train which resulted in a fairly large explosion, which sent shock waves through the rest of the country as we started to address the issue of how do we maintain safety on the rails. So we have been having a lot of discussions about what is the appropriate level of regulation. We have been having a lot of discussions about tank cars. The U.S. Department of Transportation has been meeting with the railroad industry as well as the oil and gas industry trying to assure whatever decisions are made, that they enhance safety. But I wish to talk about something that is not about government regulation and it is not about long-term strategies, except to point out the heroics and the importance of first responders. I rise to honor the heroics of Geoff Andersen, an engineer in training for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, whose bravery following the recent train derailment near Casselton prevented the dangerous explosions from the crash from spreading even farther. For many of us in the Senate, the Casselton derailment has trained our focus on our efforts to improve safety for the rail shipments of crude oil. From increased track inspections to updated tanker car standards, to the consideration of new routing options for crude shipments, all angles for improving the safety of crude rail shipments are being considered. What we should not overlook in our efforts, however, is the importance of skillful and well-trained railmen on the lines. Railmen such as Geoff Andersen are the backbone of that industry, and when one goes above and beyond the call of duty to prevent a disaster from spreading, they deserve to be recognized. On December 30, a grain car carrying soybeans to the Pacific Northwest derailed near Casselton, ND. An axle broke on the car near the middle of the train, forcing the car off the rails and onto the tracks of the adjacent line carrying trains in the opposite direction. Conductor Bruce Anderson and Road Foreman of Engines Paul Douglas radioed the emergency to the oncoming train on the opposite track, but there was insufficient time to slow down that train headed their way. In the brief moments following the derailment, an eastbound train carrying crude oil collided with a soybean car lying over the tracks and the eastbound train exploded. Following the crash, Geoff and the entire crew of the westbound grain train sprang into action. Immediately following the derailment, Conductor Bruce Anderson went back and pulled approximately 50 cars away from the fire. Recognizing the fire would soon spread to the remaining cars, Geoff worked with Assistant Fire Chief Adrian Kieffer to hatch a plan to couple back onto the remaining oil cars and unhook the tanker cars and pull them to safety. Geoff, a former civilian firefighter for the Grand Forks Air Force Base, borrowed two radios and fire protection gear from the Casselton Fire Department. His engineer and trainer, Tom Cooks, jumped into the rear engine of the train to reverse the locomotive toward the fire and connected the train to the tanker cars in danger of exploding. Geoff, armed in fire protection gear, walked toward the fire to connect the train to the cars. He then walked even closer to the fire to pull the pin on the closest tanker car within a safe distance, getting 25 more cars away from the fire. Remember, these are cars filled with crude oil. Once the pin was pulled, Geoff radioed to Tom to pull the cars away. Because of Geoff's heroics, the danger from the derailment was minimized and the explosions were isolated to the tanker cars adjacent to the derailment. Had it not been for Geoff, this disaster would have been much worse. I would like to take this time to thank not only Geoff Andersen but all those involved in the response, including Engineer Tom Cooks, Conductor Bruce Anderson, Road Foreman of Engines Paul Douglas, Casselton Fire Chief Tim McLean, and Casselton Assistant Fire Chief Adrian Kieffer, for their presence of mind and their decisive action following the crash to minimize the danger of this derailment. I rise with some awareness of what firemen do. As attorney general for the State of North Dakota, I had the pleasure of also being responsible for the fire marshal's office. As somebody in charge of the fire marshal's office, I spent a great deal of time traveling across North Dakota visiting not only with full-time firemen but the wonderful volunteer fire offices we have all across North Dakota. I have a special spot in my heart for firemen. My dad was chief of the fire department in Mantador, ND, for years and years, and took that effort quite seriously, took the training quite seriously. As we move forward in this discussion of guaranteeing the safety of crude moving on the rails, I ask this body to consider a third prong, beyond simply looking at routing decisions and prevention of derailment, and then in the unfortunate incidence, of containment of the consequences of derailment; that is, the importance of training, the importance of doing everything we can to provide the equipment and to provide the training and the resources to our first responders. Anyone who doubts the commitment of those first responders to put their lives in harm's way need only look to the 9/11 responders and realize, if you have worked with firemen, they all knew when they walked into that building their chances of returning were virtually nonexistent. Yet they walked into that building in an effort that we can only shake our heads at--the heroics of that effort. Take a look at the heroics of Geoff Andersen and his colleagues in doing everything they could to promote public safety and to guarantee public safety. Let's respond with appropriate public policy and appropriate training and appropriate resources for our first responders. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HEITKAMP

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

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, in spite of all the discussion about our great energy renaissance and ``all of the above,'' and new manufacturing--and, yes, we are going to be a test site for the unmanned aircraft--in North Dakota we live and we breathe agriculture. In summer, our plains are filled with beautiful sunflowers and canola fields and flax. It is the most amazing view, especially when the canola is next to the flax. Our ranchers take serious pride in their cattle herds that graze around much of our State. The wheat, grain, corn, and soybeans farmers provide help to feed the world and have the best products produced in agriculture today. Agriculture also supports 16 million jobs around the country, including thousands of manufacturing jobs in North Dakota. This is not surprising, given that our State is one of the most productive farm States in the country. Those jobs make it possible for our State to continue to harvest each year, supporting families across North Dakota but also throughout the country. I take great pride in the work our farmers and ranchers do. I know all North Dakotans do as well. For too long we weren't supporting them enough to enable them to do their job. In fact, we held farmers and ranchers in limbo because they haven't been sure how to prepare for this crop year since the Congress had not done its job and passed a farm bill. Finally, that is about to change. During my campaign I pledged to work tirelessly to get a long-term farm bill passed. Now we are literally at the 1-yard line of finally reaching the goal of passing a 5-year bipartisan farm bill. I am incredibly proud of the work we have done and what we have almost accomplished. And I do have to give a shout-out to our tremendous chairwoman, Senator Debbie Stabenow, who, as Senator Hoeven put it, is a tough negotiator--tough but fair, and absolutely remarkable, not only this year but also in 2013 and 2012, and who never resists an opportunity to inform anyone who crosses her path about the importance to the economy of this country that a long-term farm bill positions us much better to be competitive in the world. One subject we talk about a lot is the budget and about long-term systemic reforms that can give us what in public policy we need to do, such as a safety net for farmers, but also reduce costs to taxpayers. This farm bill saves 23 billion in Federal dollars, while still providing one of the strongest safety nets for farmers and ranchers ever crafted in a long-term farm bill. It makes critical reforms to target resources where they are most needed while also giving farmers the opportunity to thrive. This farm bill achieves that goal, and puts our agricultural system in a strong position to continue its role as a world leader. This is achieved through effective farm programs for growers; livestock disaster coverage for ranchers and livestock producers; enhanced crop insurance offerings; expanded research, which is so critical to so many of our new crops; increased export production for agricultural products; critical investments in biofuels and in energy; our renewal of the Sugar Program to prevent excess imports of unfairly subsidized foreign sugar; and targeted conservation assistance to tackle the unique problems in this country, particularly in my State with Devils Lake and the Red River Valley. In North Dakota we grow more than 20 different crops each year, and we lead the Nation in the production of 13 different commodities, including spring wheat, durum wheat, barley, edible beans, peas, lentils, canola, sunflowers, and flaxseed. So while we talk about this expansion and explosion of both corn and soybeans, North Dakota is leading the way in diversification, which I think is the future for agriculture. North Dakota is also a leading livestock State, with thousands of cow-calf operators raising livestock in the West, and a leading producer of sugar beets from growers in the Red River Valley. Approximately 25 percent of my State's economic base and employment is derived from work done on the farm. I talk about this quite a bit, because I think when we think about economics and what generates economic activity, at the very beginning, we have to have new wealth creation, and in this country new wealth creation comes from what we extract from the earth, how we use our resources, and it comes from exportation of our goods and services. That is new wealth, and farming is such a critical component. When we think about it, we realize our farmers and ranchers help grow the economy and reduce our Nation's trade deficit. North Dakota alone exported more than $4.1 billion in commodities this year, contributing to farm cash receipts of over $7.6 billion. But to simply put in a crop, an average grower in North Dakota spends upward to $1 million in import costs with the hope of earning a modest profit, a modest return on that investment at the end of the year. What is more, each year North Dakota faces challenges completely out of their control, such as floods, droughts, price collapse, and the introduction of new pests and pathogens. Each year North Dakota growers face an incredible risk--within the last 2 years--the uncertainty of not having a farm bill. They are able to take the risk because the rest of the country takes a little bit of risk with them for that food security and national security that American agriculture provides. For too long this body has debated farm and rural policies in place in our country without providing the needed certainty to America. Soon--in just a few hours--we will have the opportunity to prevail by putting rural America on a strong ground by passing a comprehensive long-term farm bill that stands for our ranchers and our producers and stands for the people who consume agricultural products in this country. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on this bill. It is good for my State, it is good for the country, and it is good for the world. I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, the number one priority for any Senator from North Dakota is the passage of a 5-year farm bill. When I was campaigning across North Dakota, I reminded my constituents that in spite of this wonderful energy renaissance we have going on in North Dakota, over 90 percent of all the land in my State is engaged in production agriculture. It makes this farm bill so critically important to the economy not only of my State but the economy of this country. Sixteen million jobs depend in this country on the passage of a farm bill which provides producers with risk management opportunities that make their farm work sustainable and make their continuation in production agriculture economically possible. So it is a good week for North Dakotans. Today we passed the flood insurance bill which will prohibit draconian and very dramatic increases in flood insurance prices from affecting my State. But also we are on the cusp and terribly close to doing something we have waited so long to do, and that is to pass a 5-year farm bill. I will talk in general about some of the things this farm bill does, but I wish to focus my attention on two areas not a lot of people have come to the floor to talk about, and those are the provisions for beginning farmers and ranchers and the importance of the livestock provisions in the farm bill. The farm bill achieves the goals that put our agricultural system in a strong position to continue this country's role as a world leader in production agriculture. This is achieved through an effective farm program for growers, livestock disaster coverage for ranchers and livestock producers, enhanced crop insurance offerings, expanded agricultural research, and increased export promotion for agricultural products. We have been void in our balance of trade by the inclusion of agricultural products and by what we do on the farm that has made a difference to that trade deficit: critical investments in biofuels which help build a stronger, more vibrant, and more resilient energy policy in our State; renewal of a sugar program to prevent excess imports of unfairly subsidized imported and foreign sugar; and targeted conservation assistance to tackle unique challenges, particularly in my State and the Red River Valley and in Devil's Lake. But I will tell a little story. For years I have been going to farm producer meetings. During my time as a State official in North Dakota, I spent a lot of time at the Farm Bureau, a lot of time at the Farmers Union, with corn growers and soybean growers, and getting to know and understand agricultural work on tax and regulatory issues. I always felt as if I was the youngest person in the room that whole while, and I was in my 30s and 40s. I would walk into a room and feel young. That has really been true. I had a really wonderful experience when I was back home this last trip. I went to something called Precision Agriculture, which is a special conference the Farmers Union hosts for North Dakota's NDSU Extension, where they look at using different kinds of new technologies, whether they are application technologies to be more efficient in how we use fertilizers and seeds or whether it is finding an ap that gives us more information for marketing. You name it. The Precision Agriculture conference has gotten bigger and bigger. But why I point that out and talk about it is that as I stood at the podium and took one look, I said: I want everybody under the age of 45 to stand up. Well over half of my audience stood up. That has never before happened in the 30 years I have been involved in public policy in North Dakota. Young farmers are coming back to the farm. Young farmers are engaging at levels with technological developments and techniques that heretofore were not available and really weren't trusted maybe by an older generation. So now we have this new generation of producers who are going to do one of the most important things that we do in this country, which is to feed our people and literally to feed the world. They are willing to do that. They are willing to risk and make incredible investments on the farm, whether it is land prices or equipment prices or whether it is betting the entire farm that you are not going to get hailed out. This farm bill is critical, first and foremost, to making sure that risk is mitigated by a crop insurance program which works for those young farmers. I will outline just very briefly what those beginning farmer and beginning rancher programs are in this farm bill. While this is changing, according to the Department of Agriculture's most recent census, the average age of American farmers is 57 years old; a quarter of American farmers are over the age of 65. Now, in North Dakota that dynamic is changing, as I have just outlined. But the 2014 farm bill makes critical investments to ensure that this next generation of farmers has an opportunity to enter the field by overcoming the high capital constraints and low production histories that make those early years the most difficult. The program continues and funds the beginning farmer and rancher development program which develops and offers education, training, outreach, and mentoring programs to ensure the success of the next generation of farmers. The bill expands eligibility to include military veterans who wish to begin a career in agriculture. The 2008 farm bill had $75 million for this program with 5 years mandatory. The 2014 bill ups that amount to $100 million, recognizing the need that we have to create that next generation of producers. The 2014 farm bill prioritizes beginning farmers across USDA programs. The Department of Agriculture is required to prioritize beginning farmers to ensure they have access to USDA programs. The bill continues to set aside loan funds for both the beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers who struggle to find credit someplace else. There are also 5-percent set-asides in the environmental quality incentive program and the conservation stewardship program to make sure that beginning farmers and ranchers have fair and equitable access to conservation programs. This new farm bill increases access to capital for new farmers and ranchers. The bill makes significant strides in increasing lending to beginning farmers by expanding eligibility, removing term limits on guaranteed lending, and strengthening microloan programs that serve those beginning farmers. This farm bill encourages older farmers to help beginning farmers through conservation. The bill reauthorizes the Conservation Reserve Program Transition Incentive Program, which gives 2 extra years of CRP to retiring farmers who transition their expiring CRP lands to beginning farmers. This program has seen great success with retiring farmers who want to help the next generation get started. This new farm bill helps beginning farmers buy land. The bill reauthorized the contract land sales program, which guarantees loan payments to retiring farmers who sell their cropland to beginning farmers. It also continues the down payment loan program which allows young farmers without much money to start investments and down payments on a farm or a ranch. The borrower makes a cash down payment of at least 5 percent of the total cost, and the government provides a low- interest loan for 45 percent of the payment. This new farm bill invests in value-added strategies that are especially important to these new farmers, value-added grants encouraging independent producers to process raw products into marketable goods, adding value and increasing farm income. Beginning farmers will continue to be given a high priority in this program. It helps beginning farmers plan in the early years. The bill continues the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Accounts, which are designed to help new farmers finance their agricultural pursuits. So this is for the next generation who looks and says: Is there opportunity in being a farmer? Can farmers not only work there, but can they own the land and continue our rich and strong tradition of family farming? I think the answer is yes. This is a farm program that offers them that opportunity that says: Yes, the United States and its people are willing to invest in your future. Finally, I wish to talk about the importance of the livestock provisions. Livestock production is hugely important to North Dakota. Are we the largest livestock producer in the United States of America? That would not be true. But for my ranchers out west, this is a critically important program. This is a program which says to the ranchers: We recognize that not everybody who is engaged in production agriculture is engaged in producing crops or specialty crops. Those who herd cattle and work cattle and work as hard as any group of people I know deserve some attention in this farm bill. If there ever was an example of where we needed to do something more for our beginning ranchers, the early snow storm of 2013 is it, where people literally lost their entire herd. For those who maybe don't have a lot of expertise, understand this: One cow is not interchangeable. Many of these families over the years, through genetics and through selective breeding, have in fact built the herd--built a herd unique to their ranch--and they lost it all. When they turned to us and said: What is there to help us? We had to say: Nothing. If you get hailed out and have crop insurance, there is help. If you have a major disaster and can't plant, there is help. But what is there for us? We had to say ``nothing,'' because we hadn't done a farm bill on a timely basis, and there was no help for those farmers. This farm bill is retroactive. It is going to help those farmers who not only experience loss in the future but who have experienced loss since October of 2011. We are on our way to fulfilling the commitment that all of us made who came to the floor in October and talked about that terrible storm. The 2014 farm bill includes exactly the type of pro-rancher policies I wanted Washington to produce. Not only does the bill include important livestock disaster programs; the bill also continues the widely popular and beneficial program called country of origin labeling--or COOL--policy which for years has been fought for by ranching families in North Dakota. Additionally, the farm bill allows USDA in future years to move forward with livestock competition rules to provide transparent pricing for cow-calf operators in my State and elsewhere. Finally, the farm bill provides targeted conservation and research programs for the support of cattle, pork, and poultry industries so they can better assess the challenges facing livestock production. I get a lot of questions even in my State. Why should anyone support the farm program? Aren't things pretty good out there on the farm? I will say, over 4 million acres in North Dakota alone could not be planted this last crop season because of high water. That means the difference between a family farmer staying in business and not staying in business. But importantly, for all of America, this means we have a crop production system which feeds our country. I tell people, let's think about things from the standpoint of value- added. What does that mean? New wealth doesn't come when you go to the retail store and buy a shirt or a new coat. That is not new wealth. We are just taking money which has been generated someplace else and circulating it in the economy. New wealth is created particularly in extractive industries such as oil and gas, coal mining, and it is created in agriculture. It is the quintessential new wealth creator. From the hard work of those producers in America grows an entire economy that fuels the opportunity for 16 million jobs. In my State of North Dakota, I was recently talking to a plant worker who works at the KSHI plant who explained to someone that his top priority for his workers was the passage of a farm bill. They said: Why would you care about the passage of a farm bill? He said: Don't you get it? If the farmers aren't doing well, we aren't producing tractors. We are not producing what we need to produce. I want everyone to understand that this is not a farm bill just for States such as North Dakota and Minnesota. This is a farm bill for the entire world--to feed the entire world. It is also a farm bill that provides new wealth creation that encourages the growth of 16 million jobs. I will close with one final thought. We talk about food, fiber, and fuel--the three things we talk about when we talk about agricultural products. But we know that in the applied research we see in those great land-grant colleges--and our State has one of the best. It is called NDSU. They have the best football team in the history of forever. But let me tell you, it is also a great extension program and great agricultural research center. They are doing amazing work at NDSU in polymer research. They are looking at biodegradable coatings and paints. We know that advanced manufacturing is the next step we are going to make in agriculture, and we are going to do everything we can to make sure that those products are sustainable and that those products are safe to use for our people and for our animals. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this farm program so we can make sure we keep 16 million people working and that we have that next generation of beginning farmers and beginning ranchers who are producing food for our country and food for the world. I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, thank you so much for this opportunity to stand and support a bill that has taken a long time to get to the floor of the U.S. Senate. I remember back when Members such as Senator Mary Landrieu stood and sounded the alarm--sounded the alarm even before we saw the problem coming. As a result of that initial effort, and as a result of the great effort of the gentleman who just left the floor, Mr. Menendez, we now have a bill on the floor where we can truly say we are actually listening to the middle class. How many times do you think in this body we talk about the working folks, who go to work every day, doing everything they can to put food on the table, and they just need us to not cause more problems for them? We hear about the middle class, and last night during the State of the Union speech, again more discussion about the need to pay attention to the financial struggles and the challenges of working families. Well, let me tell you, this is a bill that for so many working families in North Dakota and across the country can mean the difference between home ownership or no home ownership, can mean the difference between actually having equity in their home or having a house that is under water. I am not exaggerating. This is a critical part of the housing market. It has created uncertainty in the housing market while we are trying to achieve some success and some continuing momentum. Housing is 20 percent of what we do in this country in our economy, but yet this is throwing a monkey wrench into the housing market for so many families and for so many States. I want to not tell anything new here maybe but to kind of give a different perspective because I think all too often people think flood insurance is about the coast or it is about the gulf or it is about what is happening maybe along a major river, whether it is the Mississippi. But let me tell you, in my State flooding is a reality for way too many people. It is a problem we have experienced during these wet cycles that has led to devastation, has led to loss of equity in folks' homes, and it has led to uncertainty. I want to talk a little bit about two places you may not think of because you have all heard about the massive Grand Forks flood, and you, of course, watched television as we were looking at what could have potentially happened in our largest city, the city of Fargo, ND. But what you may not know is we have a city called Minot, ND, that experienced a devastating flood, an absolutely devastating flood, to a tremendous amount of affordable housing--that housing that was along the bodyway. They thought they were protected from a hundred-year flood. Many did not have flood insurance, and the hundred-year flood came and devastated and wiped out literally hundreds and hundreds of good, hard-working families and retired folks. They are looking to rebuild, but right now the uncertainty of flood insurance and what is going to happen with the new flood maps has slowed down that effort. It has created uncertainty. I just had a meeting in the city of Minot, where I talked to the mayor, talked to the city officials, and asked the questions about whether they were seeing this uncertainty. They certainly are getting lots of questions. I would love to tell those hard-working North Dakotans that we actually, in Washington, DC, can hear what they are saying. I also wish to talk about another place way off from Minot. It is in the Red River Valley. It is a place called Grafton, ND, where a great North Dakota family, Allison and Kyle, purchased their home 1 year ago. At the time, the flood insurance rate on their home was $900 a year. They knew that when they bought the house. They said: OK. Fine. We have this extra expenditure in order to meet our mortgage requirement. They built that into their budget. This is coverage for $100,000. It seemed reasonable. It seemed like they were paying their fair share. But when the policy recently came up after the changes in the Biggert-Waters law, their flood insurance rate skyrocketed to $4,200 a year--$4,200 a year. That is a 375-percent increase. In an email to me, Allison expressed a desire to raise their children in Grafton, but unfortunately they no longer can afford to live there with those rates because in Grafton we do not have flood protection. As a result, the entire community is probably in the 100-year flood plain. You are going to buy a house. You are going to get a mortgage. You are going to be required to get flood insurance. So not only is Allison devastated by this news, the whole community of Grafton is now struggling with this increase in flood insurance. In the community of Valley City, a home has a flood insurance bill that just went from $700 to more than $10,000 a year. Think about that. A lot of people who hear that amount would say: Is that your mortgage payment? No. They say: It is flood insurance. Get this. That flood insurance is for $60,000 worth of coverage. We have an opportunity here to act as a body that actually listens to the challenges of the American people and actually reforms and looks back when we make decisions, decisions such as Biggert-Waters, and as Senator Menendez has so often said, the concerns about affordability were raised at the time. They assumed those would be taken into consideration as they moved forward with the rate reduction. It did not happen and these rates went up. But we also have a unique issue in North Dakota; it is called the basement exemption. When you think about at what level your house is protected, you think about your foundation, to that level where your yard basically meets your foundation. Because we waterproofed our basements along the Red River Valley in a lot of our communities we were given an exemption. Lots of money went into waterproofing and making those basements flood-proof. One might ask: Why do you need a basement? Just put it on a slab. North Dakota, unbeknownst to a lot of people, suffers from tornados. In fact, Fargo was devastated in the 1950s by a tornado. So people take very seriously that emergency shelter that is provided in basements, and frequently those basements get rehabbed and as a result were used as flood control back when those homes were built. But now we have a basement exemption. People have made the investment. FEMA has, in fact, suggested that the basement exemptions will no longer be valid for all of those communities that have relied on that to provide affordable housing in their communities. So this bill retains and says clearly that the basement exemption, after people made investments and reliance on the government--reliance on the government's word, that we will, in fact, have protection. Without this provision, without the basement exemption, flood insurance rates in these areas that rely on basements could go up again $10,000 a year. The Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act provides a balanced, targeted approach. This bill gives FEMA the authority needed to implement reforms included in Biggert-Waters in a thoughtful way, to improve the program's solvency, and phase out certain subsidies without pricing people out of their homes and out of the program. It delays the premium increases until FEMA completes that all- important affordability study required under Biggert-Waters and proposes regulations that allow time for Congress to review. There have been some positive steps since many of my colleagues have come to the floor, including myself, to sound the alarm so many months ago. But we need still to pass this bill. I think the time is now. What better way--what better way for us to respond to the call of looking at and improving the condition of the middle class than to say: We heard. We listened. We understood the challenges and today we acted. We heard that you want to own your home. We heard that the Federal Government ought not get in the way of you owning your home. I would encourage all of my colleagues--all of my colleagues--to send a message, send a message that we are putting our votes where our mouths are; that we are, in fact, voting to improve the condition of very many working-class and middle-class American citizens who have had great uncertainty created as a result of flood insurance. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I rise today with strong concerns over how the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014, H.R. 3304, approaches the critical issue of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, ISR, and specifically the approach to the Global Hawk system. I support H.R. 3304, but I will continue to work with administration officials, our Nation's military leaders, and my colleagues to make sure our Nation makes the right investments in ISR that protect our Nation and our servicemembers. Since I joined the Senate in January 2013, I have spoken with several key Department of Defense leaders who have emphasized the importance of sufficient ISR capabilities to keep our troops safe and protect U.S. interests. The Global Hawk family of platforms plays a key role in providing that ISR capability and answering the call of combatant commanders with unmatched range, endurance, and cost-per-ISR-hour. The Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act prohibited the retirement of the Global Hawk through the end of the Fiscal Year and directed the Air Force to maintain the operational capability of each system to support operational requirements of the combatant commands. The original House version of the Fiscal Year 2014 NDAA extended this retirement prohibition on Global Hawk through the end of 2016. This smart provision would allow the still-fielding Global Hawk fleet to continue to support operations around the globe and allow Congress and the Department to gather additional information about our Nation's future ISR needs. Such information would allow the best possible decision about the Global Hawk. Unfortunately, H.R. 3304 only extends the prohibition on Global Hawk retirement through the end of Fiscal Year 2014. This decision could allow DOD to follow through on previous efforts to prematurely cancel the Block 30 version of the Global Hawk, which represents the largest group of Global Hawk platforms. DOD's own findings show that the Block 30 Global Hawk represents a more efficient platform for high-altitude ISR needs than platforms which perform the same missions, such as the U-2. It doesn't seem wise to allow the potential termination of the largest part of the Global Hawk program before Congress fully understand the capabilities and abilities of this system and how it can fit into larger DOD plans. I strongly support many of the provisions in H.R. 3304, such as its improvement in how the military approaches its sexual assault epidemic, and amendments I worked on to protect our ICBM forces and ensure our Nation moves forward in an effective way regarding unmanned aerial system integration in the national air space and the use of Reserve component units for cyber missions. However, I will continue to work with my colleagues to improve the DOD's approach to ISR and ensure our military retains the ISR it needs to keep our citizens and servicemembers safe.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, we are here today to talk about something that is critically important to very many middle-class families who enjoy home ownership across the country, and business ownership, and it is the truly bipartisan Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, which seeks to address the recent flood insurance rate escalations across the country. This bill is measured, it is reasonable, and it allows for FEMA to complete a study on flood insurance affordability and provides Congress with assurance about FEMA's ability to accurately determine flood risk before implementing pieces of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act. I think it is true in many cases that the Congress has good intentions. They passed the Biggert-Waters provisions, they passed the act, but implementation has been a nightmare. I don't think we are exaggerating in saying it has been a nightmare for very many of our community members, especially across the coastal areas. I think it is important that I speak as someone from a Plains State who has told people repeatedly that flood insurance is a huge impediment to success and to home ownership in North Dakota, in very many of my communities. I wish to mention some of the provisions of the bill. The bill would delay a rate increase for the following properties: primary, non- repetitive loss residences that were grandfathered; all properties sold after July 6, 2012; and all property that purchased a new policy after that date. It is important that the folks out there who have already gotten these tremendous flood insurance bills understand that our effort is to make this bill retroactive to October 1 of this year so that those rate increases that were mandated by that date don't take effect. The basement provision is something we have spent a lot of time educating other Members about. It is a provision that affects very many communities across the country, including 14 in North Dakota, where some of our largest communities have flood-proof basements. They have lived by the rules and they have done all that they should do, so they have been granted an exemption from flood insurance, taking a look at where the foundation is as opposed to where the basement floor is when they determine vulnerability. That basement exemption is in danger of being repealed by FEMA, and we want to make sure that whatever we do recognizes that when those homeowners have played by the rules, have done what is right and flood-proofed their basements, it is recognized in a flood insurance program. Generally speaking, I came to the Senate to fight for North Dakotans. I have to imagine most of the Senators are here because they want to fight for the people of their States. A major way to do that is to protect American families and their homes and stop putting undue pressure on them. It is a simple idea, but it is proving much harder to implement than I would like. Flooding is a reality far too often in North Dakota, and there are many other communities across the country that see the same kind of plains flooding. Just in the past few years we have seen communities such as Fargo, Minot, Grafton, and others impacted by severe flooding that has destroyed homes and businesses. This fall flood insurance rates went up for millions of families. This puts families at risk. So many of them have to struggle to pay for flood insurance or they have to walk away, literally walk away from their investment in their home. Biggert-Waters is having an immediate impact on homeowners in my State. I will give one example. There is a woman I know from Grafton, ND, named Alison Skari who, with her husband Kyle, purchased a home in that small community about a year ago. At the time, the flood insurance rate was $901 for $100,000 worth of coverage. But when the policy recently came up for renewal, their flood insurance skyrocketed to more than $4,200 a year. Let me repeat those statistics. Their flood insurance cost when they bought their home was at $901. Today their bill is $4,200--a 375-percent increase for the same amount of coverage. In an email to me, Allison expressed a desire to raise her children in Grafton, but unfortunately they no longer can afford their home--not with these new rates. She said had she and her husband known about these rates when they bought their home, they would never have purchased their home. This story reinforces that we need to take a new look. We need to take a new look at this Flood Insurance Program. We need to take a new look at affordability of home ownership. Everybody knows that in the last--certainly since 2008 we have seen a slow recovery in home ownership. We have tried to make sure people can realize the American dream, and a big part of that is, in fact, the owning of their own home. Yet here we are in the Congress making it virtually impossible for middle-class families to buy and live in and enjoy their homes. That was never the intention of the Biggert-Waters provision. The intention was to bring the Flood Insurance Program to a more reasonable, market-based evaluation. But I don't think anyone in this body anticipated these dramatic and very devastating increases. I believe we absolutely need to do something to send a message that we in this body are listening to the middle class. We are listening to the middle class. When every person who runs for office--in their campaign, I bet there isn't one person in this body who didn't say: I am there to help protect the middle class. This is our opportunity, in a bipartisan way, to step up and protect the middle class and to tell people that grasp of home ownership, that piece of the American dream is within their reach, and it is within their reach because we aren't doing devastating things here in Washington, DC. I thank my great friend from Louisiana. As a new Member, I preside frequently on the floor of the Senate, and I think that if there has been a canary on this issue, that early bellwether whom we look to and who said we are going to have problems, it was Senator Mary Landrieu, who alerted this body from the very beginning, who knew these increases were coming and so ably advanced her leadership on this issue. I applaud her for that. I applaud Senator Menendez and Senator Schumer and so many people on the other side who have worked with us to try to develop a bill that truly has bipartisan support. I urge this body to send a very important holiday present, a Christmas present to the middle class of America by passing this reform bill, by delaying these increases and making that dream of home ownership possible in the future.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, this is a tough issue. It is a tough issue because good people don't agree. Good people don't see the issue the same way. But we cannot lose sight of the fact that so many of the reforms we will be voting on to guarantee a safe haven, to guarantee a safe experience, a common camaraderie, are all parts of a big plan for change. What we are debating today is one small portion of that--not small in the sense of impact. We need to make sure we reward all of the great work the committee has done, the great work that has been done with the leadership of Senator McCaskill from the great State of Missouri, and the commitment that this body is making today, in a very unified way, to change the outcome. I will spend a moment with that in mind to talk about how I came to my decision to support the Gillibrand amendment. I wish to first talk about my experience. I am probably one of the few people in this body who has actually sat across a table as somebody who had the power to make the decision on whether we were going to, in fact, pursue a prosecution and have that discussion. I know that is a shared experience I have with Senator McCaskill, and those are experiences we will never forget--the damage that is done so often when people are victims of sexual assault, beyond other kinds and other forms of physical assault, the power and the responsibility. So I recognize the great need we have to deal with this issue. I recognize the great need we have to have professionals make the decision. The bottom line for me is, if someone came forward and appendicitis was suspected, he or she wouldn't ask the commanding officer to make the decision for the doctor. What I am suggesting today is that these are very difficult decisions on whether one is going to pursue or decline a prosecution and they should be made by people who are trained. There should be a whole system--as we have seen in the civil side--a whole system of support. Frequently we talked about, back in the 1980s and the 1990s--as we were moving through these same questions in the civil courts--not revictimizing the victim. I think what you are hearing today is story upon story where victims of sexual assault in the military feel not only let down but they feel revictimized. So I want to very quickly go through a couple of the points we have heard over and over, which is that this change in the Gillibrand amendment would affect good order and discipline in the military. I have heard this from many of the military, the good military leaders who have come to my office to talk about this problem: that they need this authority, this specific convening authority, because their orders will fall on deaf ears or their leadership will be questioned. I am not an expert in leadership, but I have to ask you: Do we really believe that sort of authority is truly essential to being someone whom the troops will follow, someone who demands respect, who inspires devotion or truly will stand and fight side by side no matter what the cost? The conclusion I make is that I do not think so. Because when I talk to our brave veterans in North Dakota or our noncommissioned officers who lead our servicemembers every single day, that is not what I hear. I hear: I knew he would do the same for me. Not: Well, he has convening authority. That is what I believe inspires and maintains good order and discipline: the shared values of a mission, of trust, of concern, and respect. I also have heard great reforms, especially in the Air Force--and we have a special relationship in North Dakota to the Air Force, having two air bases. The Air Force JAG came in and told me about the new process and the new procedures and impressed upon me this great opportunity they had taken now for change. I said one thing. I said: It is too late. It is too late to expect that we are going to believe it this time. It's the old adage: ``Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.'' We are at that point now where something very dramatic needs to happen in order to send the very important message that you matter and this behavior does not reflect behavior that is becoming of our troops, of our country, and the people who step up to serve our country. Progress that has been made does not go far enough. I think it is time to boldly act and step up for people who serve, who have stepped up bravely and said: What can I do, no matter the cost or the sacrifice--knowing the hardship they will endure and the distance from home and family who love and care for them; that when they go, our military personnel say: I am yours. I will go and do whatever I need to do, whatever you tell me, to protect our values and to protect our way of life. It seems a small thing to do everything we can to protect those who protect us. The time has come to address this, to send a strong and important message to our volunteer service that we will not tolerate this and that we will put this decision in the hands of the people who are best equipped to make this important decision. And that is the prosecutors. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I will start with a story because I think a lot of us come to the Senate with a lot of experiences, a lot of common experiences, and I think the Senator from Alaska and I have shared this common experience of seeing the despair, looking at the statistics, but more importantly, in my case, in Indian Country, and in her case, working with indigenous people, seeing that so much more needs to be done; seeing the disparities in education, seeing the disparities in health care, seeing the disparities in housing, and recognizing that all of those things have huge consequences; seeing what high poverty does to people who are not given the right opportunities. I think frequently it is so important that we do something like this so we can begin that process of educating our colleagues on how this situation is different, what our experiences are. If you have not seen or been in Indian Country, if you have not looked at the statistics, it is alarming. It is absolutely alarming. The story I want to give before I talk about our legislation is the statistic on mortality rates. In this country, child mortality has decreased by 9 percent since 2000. That is good news. We are paying more attention, doing a better job at infancy, doing a better job raising our kids. The child mortality rate among Native children has increased 15 percent--increased 15 percent at the same time it has decreased in this country 9 percent. We have tried various programs, whether it is housing programs, education programs, higher education programs, but we know this works better if we all work together and if we work collaboratively. I know a lot of people have suspicions about things called commissions, but I believe for the first time we will be pulling together the data regarding what is exactly the status of Native children all across the United States of America--in Alaska, Alaska indigenous people, as well as Alaskan folks--and saying: Where do we begin to understand this problem differently and change outcomes, because if we keep doing what we are doing right now, we will fail the next generation of Native children, and we will fail to do what we need to do. This is not a new issue for me. When I was attorney general, I spent a lot of time in Indian Country, a lot of time on Indian issues. I want to tell a story before I describe briefly what this Commission would do. It is a story about a woman who showed up at a conference. We were talking about trying to get resources to do a conference on juvenile crime on the reservations. She told a story about how she was dyslexic as a child and her mother was not a very patient woman. She was waiting to go to a birthday party, and she was sitting and looking out the window, and she would ask her mother every 5 minutes: Is it time yet? Are they going to come? Finally, her mother, out of frustration, took this little girl's hand and dragged it back and forth across a nail that was on the window ledge and said: Maybe now you will remember. She held up her hand, and you could still see the scars. And she said something I will never forget. She said: Who cares about me? I looked out that window and thought, who is going to come and help me? All across America there are children looking out a window in Indian Country and in all of these very remote places wondering who is going to care about them. Who is going to help them? When we have trust obligations, isn't that the job of the U.S. Congress? Isn't that the job of all of us, to care about all of our children? Yet these children are left behind. Time and time again, you will read a story in the paper about an abducted child, and you do not realize there could have been 10 children abducted off a reservation in North Dakota. You do not read a story about trafficking in North Dakota, but it is happening. You do not read a story about child abuse and neglect, and it is happening, or failed schools, schools whose roofs are caving in because we have not met our education obligation. So what this Commission would do is bring attention to this very important part of our population, the part that gets left behind, that no one looks out for, and start saying: What are we going to do differently? What are we going to do differently for our children? These are all our children. I can tell you I felt a kindred spirit when I began to talk about this issue with the Senator from Alaska and talk about how important it is for people to really understand those challenges and how important it is to prevent costs later on if we just do a little Head Start. Children in Indian Country go to Head Start at a lower rate. Their education system fails them. Fifty percent of Native kids graduate from high school, compared to 75 percent in the White population. These statistics mean a lot. We all look at statistics. But behind each one of them is a young child struggling to make something out of their lives in this world and wanting to believe that they matter. So what we are doing today is establishing a commission on the status of Indian children to simply say: You matter. We need to come up with different ideas and different solutions on how we are going to solve the problem. I had a great opportunity to go to Alaska and spend some time with the Alaska corporations and the indigenous people in Alaska. It was a new experience for me because we are used to Indian Country. We are used to reservations. But so many of the challenges--I am sure the Senator from Alaska would agree--so many of the challenges are so similar in Alaska and North Dakota, partly because of our remoteness but partly because these are obligations that have not been lived up to. So I wish to ask the great Senator from Alaska how she thinks this commission could work to actually better the children, the Native children in our country?

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, suicide is the second leading cause of death among Native American young adults ages 15 to 24. It is 2\1/2\ times the national average. The despair my great friend from the great State of Alaska has just outlined for us--it seems there is no way out, that no one is looking, they are invisible, that their problems are inconsequential and no one cares. Yes, I thank my colleague from Alaska for that wonderful vision that this commission tells them they are not invisible to us, they are not invisible to the Congress, they are not invisible to the administration; that people are there and they care. Maybe it offers that hope. Maybe it offers that opportunity to tell more of these stories and to shine a greater light of awareness onto this problem. It is a national disgrace. If we continue to do what we have always done in housing, education, health care, and public safety, if we continue to do what we have always done, we will lose yet another generation to despair. It is time for Congress to step up, honor our treaty obligations and recognize that if we cannot protect the smallest among us, the most vulnerable, the most remote among us, that we aren't worthy of this body. We aren't worthy of this government. I invite all of our colleagues to join with us and send a message loudly and clearly to Native children in our country that they matter; they matter at their homes, in their communities, their States, their clubs, and their schools, but they also matter in the halls of the Senate.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I will start with a story because I think a lot of us come to the Senate with a lot of experiences, a lot of common experiences, and I think the Senator from Alaska and I have shared this common experience of seeing the despair, looking at the statistics, but more importantly, in my case, in Indian Country, and in her case, working with indigenous people, seeing that so much more needs to be done; seeing the disparities in education, seeing the disparities in health care, seeing the disparities in housing, and recognizing that all of those things have huge consequences; seeing what high poverty does to people who are not given the right opportunities. I think frequently it is so important that we do something like this so we can begin that process of educating our colleagues on how this situation is different, what our experiences are. If you have not seen or been in Indian Country, if you have not looked at the statistics, it is alarming. It is absolutely alarming. The story I want to give before I talk about our legislation is the statistic on mortality rates. In this country, child mortality has decreased by 9 percent since 2000. That is good news. We are paying more attention, doing a better job at infancy, doing a better job raising our kids. The child mortality rate among Native children has increased 15 percent--increased 15 percent at the same time it has decreased in this country 9 percent. We have tried various programs, whether it is housing programs, education programs, higher education programs, but we know this works better if we all work together and if we work collaboratively. I know a lot of people have suspicions about things called commissions, but I believe for the first time we will be pulling together the data regarding what is exactly the status of Native children all across the United States of America--in Alaska, Alaska indigenous people, as well as Alaskan folks--and saying: Where do we begin to understand this problem differently and change outcomes, because if we keep doing what we are doing right now, we will fail the next generation of Native children, and we will fail to do what we need to do. This is not a new issue for me. When I was attorney general, I spent a lot of time in Indian Country, a lot of time on Indian issues. I want to tell a story before I describe briefly what this Commission would do. It is a story about a woman who showed up at a conference. We were talking about trying to get resources to do a conference on juvenile crime on the reservations. She told a story about how she was dyslexic as a child and her mother was not a very patient woman. She was waiting to go to a birthday party, and she was sitting and looking out the window, and she would ask her mother every 5 minutes: Is it time yet? Are they going to come? Finally, her mother, out of frustration, took this little girl's hand and dragged it back and forth across a nail that was on the window ledge and said: Maybe now you will remember. She held up her hand, and you could still see the scars. And she said something I will never forget. She said: Who cares about me? I looked out that window and thought, who is going to come and help me? All across America there are children looking out a window in Indian Country and in all of these very remote places wondering who is going to care about them. Who is going to help them? When we have trust obligations, isn't that the job of the U.S. Congress? Isn't that the job of all of us, to care about all of our children? Yet these children are left behind. Time and time again, you will read a story in the paper about an abducted child, and you do not realize there could have been 10 children abducted off a reservation in North Dakota. You do not read a story about trafficking in North Dakota, but it is happening. You do not read a story about child abuse and neglect, and it is happening, or failed schools, schools whose roofs are caving in because we have not met our education obligation. So what this Commission would do is bring attention to this very important part of our population, the part that gets left behind, that no one looks out for, and start saying: What are we going to do differently? What are we going to do differently for our children? These are all our children. I can tell you I felt a kindred spirit when I began to talk about this issue with the Senator from Alaska and talk about how important it is for people to really understand those challenges and how important it is to prevent costs later on if we just do a little Head Start. Children in Indian Country go to Head Start at a lower rate. Their education system fails them. Fifty percent of Native kids graduate from high school, compared to 75 percent in the White population. These statistics mean a lot. We all look at statistics. But behind each one of them is a young child struggling to make something out of their lives in this world and wanting to believe that they matter. So what we are doing today is establishing a commission on the status of Indian children to simply say: You matter. We need to come up with different ideas and different solutions on how we are going to solve the problem. I had a great opportunity to go to Alaska and spend some time with the Alaska corporations and the indigenous people in Alaska. It was a new experience for me because we are used to Indian Country. We are used to reservations. But so many of the challenges--I am sure the Senator from Alaska would agree--so many of the challenges are so similar in Alaska and North Dakota, partly because of our remoteness but partly because these are obligations that have not been lived up to. So I wish to ask the great Senator from Alaska how she thinks this commission could work to actually better the children, the Native children in our country?

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, suicide is the second leading cause of death among Native American young adults ages 15 to 24. It is 2\1/2\ times the national average. The despair my great friend from the great State of Alaska has just outlined for us--it seems there is no way out, that no one is looking, they are invisible, that their problems are inconsequential and no one cares. Yes, I thank my colleague from Alaska for that wonderful vision that this commission tells them they are not invisible to us, they are not invisible to the Congress, they are not invisible to the administration; that people are there and they care. Maybe it offers that hope. Maybe it offers that opportunity to tell more of these stories and to shine a greater light of awareness onto this problem. It is a national disgrace. If we continue to do what we have always done in housing, education, health care, and public safety, if we continue to do what we have always done, we will lose yet another generation to despair. It is time for Congress to step up, honor our treaty obligations and recognize that if we cannot protect the smallest among us, the most vulnerable, the most remote among us, that we aren't worthy of this body. We aren't worthy of this government. I invite all of our colleagues to join with us and send a message loudly and clearly to Native children in our country that they matter; they matter at their homes, in their communities, their States, their clubs, and their schools, but they also matter in the halls of the Senate.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, 5 days ago I wondered why I came to the Senate. I had the same belief the American people had: This is a place which is no longer functioning, stuck in gridlock and not able to get anything done. Then an amazing thing happened. Under the leadership of some strong and senior Members, a group came together to have a broader discussion. We called the discussion plan B. This discussion presented ideas that would, in fact, find their way toward compromise. Under the strong leadership of Senator Collins, as well as the great Senator from Alaska Lisa Murkowski, we were able to bring people together and begin those discussions. They started the dialog that I really think had an opportunity to present a template for a resolution. Today we are doing something the American people have waited for us to do for the last 16 days. We are doing what is responsible and opening the government, extending the debt limit, and doing regular order. No more special committees, no more supercommittees or pinning our hopes on a Bowles-Simpson or Rivlin commission--we are going to make this body function again. I think we have a lot of great hope that our chairman Patty Murray and ranking member, Senator Sessions from Alabama, will meet with their House counterparts in principled negotiations and discussions that will once again tell the American people we are serious about doing their bidding and their business. The proof now is in the pudding. We have taken what little confidence the American public had in this institution and the institution of the U.S. Congress and once again shook it. It is time that we bring that confidence back. There is no better time than fulfilling the promise and commitment of this agreement today and getting back to regular order. I thank all of my colleagues--Senator Manchin, Senator Angus King from Maine, Mark Pryor from Arkansas, who was instrumental in getting me to run for the Senate. I occasionally remind him of that. Mark and I were attorneys general together. There have been so many great opportunities to have conversations across the aisle that I think bore fruit today and will continue to flourish, thrive, and provide opportunity for more bipartisan compromise. I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, I was presiding during the last exchange between the great Senators from Louisiana and Tennessee. I was struck because as a junior member of this body I get an opportunity to sit in the chair quite a bit. I would suggest to anyone, if they want to see someone who came to the floor and predicted this outcome--who said it very early on--Senator Corker gave what I call the box canyon speech. He did it repeatedly, because he could see what this would do if we continued to take hard-line positions that really would achieve absolutely no results. I think Senator Corker has been a champion in calling out all of us to behave responsibly, to behave in a fiscally appropriate way. He has been a great mentor to many of us who are new in this body. We don't always share the same philosophies, but I certainly appreciate his willingness to tell the truth and to speak with common sense. That is really why I came to the floor today. Initially, when I came here, I thought I would write a book called ``That Makes No Sense,'' talking about all that we do and what we say and how what we do doesn't really match up all that well with what we say. I have to admit that in the last couple of weeks, my father's voice has come to me over and over. My father never went to high school. He had an eighth grade education, but he was part of the greatest generation, a World War II vet. He had an expression for his seven kids, in nine years--seven of us in nine years. When we would do things that he thought lacked common sense, he would say, ``How darn dumb are you?'' I am sure the Presiding Officer knows he didn't use the word ``dumb,'' but I will use that word in the interest of propriety here. So I rise today to talk about what we are doing now that makes no sense. We have heard in the last hour and a half a lot of discussion about fiscal accountability and fiscal responsibility. Senators have been coming to the floor and speaking about their perspective on how we need to live within our means. I totally agree. But think of this: Think about where we are right now, today, adding to our debt and deficits by a dysfunction that is completely created right here in Washington, DC. I am going to start by mentioning three things. The first thing is the House of Representatives consistently not voting--not taking up the CR, which was negotiated--short-term, negotiated and agreed to--and not putting that CR on the floor for a vote. Then, the same people who voted to not let people work voted to pay people not to work. Think about what the American public sees when they see that, that we won't let people who want to work--they know their work is piling up. They are committed public servants. The Washington Post has been replete with stories about people who want to get back to their jobs. They want to be public servants. So we vote so they can't go to work, but we pay them not to go to work. We won't let them work, but we pay them not to go to work. In the meantime, we don't have anyone to check out disaster accounts in North Dakota. We don't have BLM permits being issued in Indian country to help as the struggling Indian nations in my State achieve some economic parity. We don't have things getting done. There is no bill in the House with that headline CR--that is what I call it. It is the headline CR. Whatever is in the headlines, we will pass a bill to fix that. That is no way to run a government. It makes no sense. Let's talk about the debt. Let's talk about the need to control our debt and have a deficit reduction and a long-term plan to pay down our debt. Why is it important? Because we pay interest on the debt, and every dollar of interest we pay is another dollar we don't have for Head Start, another dollar we don't have for education or research or for higher education. So this is a real problem. What are we doing? We have people who have said it doesn't matter; we don't need to pay our debt. We can just decide which bills we are going to pay. I am the same as every person in America. They know that when they go to check their credit score--a person goes to the bank to get a car loan, and the bank says: Well, you don't have a high enough credit score so we are going to deny your car loan. You say: But what is the problem? They say: Well, you missed a credit card payment and you missed your mortgage payment. You say: But I always paid my car loan. That is not the way it works. What they know and what the American people know is that if you do not pay all your bills, your credit rating goes down. The tragedy is that we are not only going to add to the debt and deficit of this country by playing this brinkmanship, we are going to hurt every American who relies on credit--whether it is for a mortgage, whether it is for a car loan, whether it is for a student loan. We have now linked student loans to this problem. Think about the dollars and think about what is happening to the American people when we do not do what we need to do. We shut down government but will not let people go to work, will not let people serve the public, but then say: Oh, don't worry, we are going to pay you. And then, by shutting down this government, we have cost millions and millions and billions of dollars, adding to the debt and deficit-- dollars we did not have to spend. Now we are going to play this brinkmanship on our debt limit. We are going to shake up not only the American markets, we are going to add to the interest costs of the American people and of this government. We already have in the markets discounting of our Treasury bills. We already have seen exactly what is going to happen. The longer this impasse stays, the more dramatic this result is going to be. The vote we took yesterday in the Senate sent a message--and the wrong message, I tell you, the wrong message--to the markets. We need to send the right message. We need to come together. We need to lead from the Senate because the House, which is not even in session today addressing this problem, seems to think there is no problem with the debt limit, there is no problem with not paying our bills, there is no problem with paying people and not letting them work. Do you know what my dad would say? How darn dumb are you? What I say is that makes no sense because as passionate as I know they are about debt and deficit reduction, the reality is that what we are doing is adding to the debt and deficit. What we are doing is justifying--justifying--a 5-percent approval rating for the U.S. Congress. Every day we are here that we do not achieve a result, every day we are here that we do not solve this problem, how can you argue that the judgment of the American public is wrong? I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, yesterday I came to the Senate floor to talk about how the government shutdown is affecting North Dakota ranchers and farmers, particularly my ranchers who were hit by last weekend's storm and lost a vast number of cattle, jeopardizing their livelihood for years to come, and aren't getting the help they need from the USDA and the Farm Service Agency. Today I wish to talk about another devastating consequence of this shutdown, and that is the consequence of this shutdown on Indian Country in my State, and undoubtedly Indian Country all across this Nation. In North Dakota we have five Indian reservations which are home to many Native-American families. These are communities where economic development and many times employment have been trying to get a foothold, trying to catch up, and where many of my State's most vulnerable individuals live. We have heard a lot and much has been made about the United States living up to its obligations, its contract obligations, its obligations to the entities that hold our debt, but we haven't talked about the United States living up to its treaty obligations to Indian tribes in this country. This shutdown poses a serious--and I am not exaggerating--a serious threat to the basic services the Federal Government provides to Native- American families as part of its trust, its contract, its obligation to Native Americans and Native-American nations. I recently had a discussion with tribal chairs all across North Dakota. I was hearing more and more of the kind of horror stories we hear when all of a sudden weather is coming and food assistance is needed and fuel assistance is needed. I wish to share with this body today the stories I heard, because they are telling stories about how foolish and how dangerous this government shutdown is to many very vulnerable families, particularly vulnerable Native-American families. By way of introduction, most of the five tribes in North Dakota are direct service tribes, which means BIA itself performs critical functions to help Native-American families. So BIA is the place where people go to get assistance. With the shutdown, there are few or no BIA employees in each reservation to carry out this very important work. That means BIA's general assistance programs are no longer able to serve, for example, the 600 families on the Turtle Mountain Reservation who would otherwise receive an average of $97 per person to meet essential needs of food, shelter, and utilities. The food banks and the food pantries are overrun. It is not an exaggeration to say this shutdown has caused people in the Turtle Mountain Reservation to go hungry. At the Spirit Lake Nation, something we have heard a lot about in the last year is that social services are stretched to the max, where we have problems in even a fully funded government; but today the vast majority of BIA child social service agencies have stopped, leaving children stuck in limbo in the court system, waiting for someone to find them a safe and decent home. Some examples: A woman wishing to report a sexual abuse of her son has been attempting to contact Child Protective Services for over a week now. When she went to the office, the doors were shut and the 24-hour on-call person didn't answer the phone. At the same time, BIA law enforcement is limited--and there is a lot of acreage out there that they have to cover--to one officer per shift. They are patrolling 252,000 acres with one officer. At the Sisseton-Wahpeton Reservation, almost 50 percent of the tribe's ongoing budget consists of Federal funds. The tribe is preparing to furlough more than 200 employees. Right now, the tribe is able to pay them out of carryover funds, but unless the government reopens soon, it won't be able to afford to pay these employees and they will be furloughed. In a couple examples of great tragedy, the Sisseton-Wahpeton community recently lost a 3-month-old baby and, because of the shutdown, the mother has been turned away for burial assistance for her child. Gerald Thompson, an elder at Sisseton-Wahpeton and a Vietnam vet--and I know on the floor with me is our Senator from South Dakota and he can attest to the great number of Native Americans who serve in our military, at a much higher rate than almost any other group. Gerald is a proud Vietnam vet. He receives a small Federal stipend which is not even enough to cover the basic essentials. His stipend is no longer available because of the shutdown. His wife is suffering from diabetes and stage 3 kidney disease. He worries about not being able to afford the gas to drive her to Fargo once a week, and he wonders how he is going to buy propane for heat for his family and his home. At Indian Health Service facilities, health care workers such as those at Standing Rock recognize people still need medical attention, so they are still coming to work with no promise of a paycheck and probably, some people would argue here, doing so illegally. The Mandan Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, which is at the epicenter of oil and gas development in the Bakken oil shale in North Dakota, will see that development slowed. There is always competition for rigs in North Dakota. Where are those going to move? Everybody is waiting for the rig to show up and begin to drill their wells. The tribes have had a tremendous opportunity not only to develop the resource that will help them economically, but to develop this resource which is moving us in the right direction for energy independence. But because of the shutdown, MHA Nation is losing a substantial amount of Federal oil and gas revenue. Right now, the tribes aren't able to get energy development agreements. They can't get drilling permits approved or have environmental impact assessments completed because BLM and EPA are shut down and not available. Those rigs will move someplace else. The tribe has hundreds of drilling permits awaiting approval and this is only going to delay them further. The situation is also dire in urban Indian communities. U-Tech, United Tribes Technical College, is one of several tribal colleges that serves over 600 students trying to better themselves and another 300 children who attend their K-through-8 elementary school on the college campus. But because of the shutdown, they are reducing those education services to both the college students and to children. The list goes on and on and on. It will only get worse. If we continue to not address this problem, we are turning our back on these very real needs. But I think also, importantly, we are turning our back on an obligation this country undertook when it signed treaties with the tribal people of my State. All across North Dakota, families, workers, children, people who are disabled, are losing access to services and assistance and are losing their paycheck. Why? Why is this happening? Because Congress, arguably the greatest democratic body ever envisioned, is bickering and plagued with inaction. House Republicans continue to bring up individual bills that only address the issues of the day and programs that have only been written about in headlines. Whenever there is a headline, we can fund that because we want to say we are responding to those needs. Well, I think I need a headline for our Native-American families who are in dire straits, and for the Bureau of Indian Education as well as BIA. So I ask: What about Native-American families who are unable to get critical social services to afford food or housing because BIA is closed during the shutdown? Where is the bill for them? Also, equally important, where is the public safety for them? Where is the public safety for those tribal members? What about the ranchers who lost a huge percentage of their herd not only in my State in the southwest corner, but also all across West River and South Dakota, who can't get assistance from the Department of Agriculture? Where is the bill for them? What about our young farmers who are trying to build the farms of tomorrow and feed our country, who aren't able to receive their income checks because the Farm Service Agency is shut down? They can't even get their money. Where is the bill for them? What about North Dakotans trying to start a small business or get a home mortgage and aren't able to access those Federal programs? Where is the bill for them? It is time we stop this. It is time we respond to the very real hurt in America. We hear a lot about who is winning and who is losing politically. That is a sad day when that is the deliberation we have, because it is the American people whom we are here to serve. It is the American people to whom we have an obligation. We need to end this impasse and to open the government. My people in Indian Country in North Dakota need and want and believe they have earned that respect and a commitment to their treaty rights. Thank you so much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, October 1 was a significant day. Two things happened to the constituents in my State. The first we talk a lot about here, and that is basically the shutdown of the government, the failure to pass a continuing resolution that would keep the doors of government open for the thousands and thousands of Americans, and North Dakotans, who depend on government services. This horrible impasse continues to have a horrible impact and continues to have consequences that people didn't foresee. The second thing that happened, which hasn't gotten a lot of attention, is the expiration of a long-term farm bill. After negotiating in this body, and with a large bipartisan vote, we were able to accommodate concerns. We came together after negotiating, and we came up with a package that included real reforms, eliminated direct payments, included real reform in SNAP, streamlined conservation programs, and basically offered $25 billion of debt relief to the country. It was a great package. We sent it over to the House and waited for the House to pass their farm bill. They initially couldn't pass a farm bill. Then they decided to divide the farm bill, pass part of the farm bill, pass the other part of the farm bill with nutrition, now have a vote to bring them back together, and we are patiently awaiting the appointment of a conference committee. The passage of the farm bill has never been a partisan issue. In fact, it is a regional issue. Things that are good for North Dakota may not be good for the Presiding Officer's State of Delaware, but we all work together, we all compromise, and we all come together. This past weekend South Dakota and southwestern North Dakota were hit with a terrible snowstorm. Over 2 days that region was blanketed with anywhere from 2 feet to 7 feet of snow and contained winds over 70 miles an hour. Because of the early storm, tens of thousands of cattle died because they were suffocated, mired and drowned in stock dams or dropped in exhaustion. The pictures and the stories are devastating. This image is one that is all too common after the recent blizzard in the Dakotas. These cattle that died over the weekend near Hettinger, ND, were owned by the Christman family. As is the case with many North Dakota ranchers, this hard-working family lost many cows and calves during this surprise fall storm. What people may not understand about the cattle industry is they might think one cow is like the next cow; people can just replace them. These herds are the product of years and years of selective breeding, years and years of working to improve the quality of their herd and to meet different specifications in the market. They are more than cows. They contain an intellectual property component that is not easily replaced. This is where the crisis of the dysfunction that is Washington, DC, meets natural disaster. When livestock die from a natural disaster, farmers report the number of cattle that died to the Farm Service Agency--the FSA. However, because the doors are closed on the Federal Government, North Dakota ranchers, South Dakota ranchers, anyone who is experiencing livestock losses, have no place to report those losses. And even worse, they have no one at USDA to consult with about the information they need to collect to eventually report their claims. This is critical information. If farmers aren't collecting the information they need to make disaster claims in the future, the safety nets put in place to provide some support to these hard-working ranchers may be denied simply because of a paperwork error. Unfortunately, this is an avoidable problem. As has been the case with so many in recent years, it is the product of congressional dysfunction. Because we haven't passed a new farm bill, the livestock program that helps ranchers withstand losses to livestock herds due to extreme weather events--the Livestock Indemnity Program--has expired, and the emergency assistance for livestock and honeybee producers program, which is in the stalled farm bill and which helps producers stay in business after they experience significant losses because of natural disaster, isn't available to the ranchers and the beekeepers who were hit the hardest by the storm. Until Congress passes a farm bill, livestock producers are in danger of losing their business, and they will not be eligible for support. These ranchers and the farm bill are more collateral damage of the government shutdown. Because we are debating whether to fund the Federal Government, Congress isn't able to work on a farm bill. We have been waiting and waiting and waiting for the appointment of conferees. The chairwoman, I think, intends to make a floor speech about the farm bill yet today. She has been working very hard to encourage the collection of information and to encourage the appointment of conferees to the conference committee and get focused on this issue. Unfortunately, it is not happening until next week, if it even happens then. In addition, the lack of assistance for ranchers in the aftermath of this devastating storm as a result of the shutdown is hurting farmers and agricultural industries, which is a key piece of North Dakota's economy. Here are some additional examples of where the shutdown is hurting our farmers. Frequently, because farmers who use FSA loans have a joint obligation with FSA, when they receive their checks after they sell their products, the checks are frequently made out to both the Farm Service Agency and the farmer. Consequently, the farmer cannot cash the check unless he can get an endorsement from the Farm Service Agency. Guess what. They go, knock on the door, and no one is there to cosign their check. So that money in their hand that they need to make the investments for next year, that they need to pay the person who maybe supplies the feed, that they need to pay the fuel bill--that money is not available to them, even though they have earned it and they have sold their products. So the government shutdown prevents FSA from cashing these checks and from signing these checks. This is money the farmers have earned and they deserve, and denying them their income is outrageous. What is worse, farmers and ranchers enrolled in the loan programs are new and beginning farmers, farmers who are just starting. It is a great thing that is happening in the Dakotas and all across farm country as we look at the increasing commodity prices and we look at a farm program that for the last 5 years has been stable and provided risk management. As a result, our farmers are getting younger and younger. The people who are going to feed the world and continue to develop our rural areas are younger and younger. They cannot withstand cashflow problems. They cannot withstand this loss. Another impact of the shutdown: Agricultural reports from the National Agriculture Statistics Service aren't available to farmers. These reports are crucial resources that farmers need to make decisions such as how to price crops, which commodities to grow, and when to sell those commodities, and the reports enable farmers to track cattle auction prices. Not only has NASS stopped putting out new reports about demand and supply, exports, and prices, but all Web sites with past information have been taken down because of the government shutdown. Farmers aren't receiving assistance from farm programs. The Department of Agriculture's local farm services offices have been shut down because of the shutdown and, as a result, farmers can't apply for new loans, sign up acreages for farm programs, or receive government checks for the programs they are already enrolled in. Devastating to so many of our people living on fixed incomes in North Dakota, who have engaged in and basically put their land into the conservation reserve program, is conservation reserve checks are not being issued. That has a huge impact, particularly on those ranchers and those landowners who use CRP payments to supplement their Social Security. The list goes on and on. As time continues, this list will only get longer and longer. I understand the strategy, perhaps, in the House is to--whatever is the headline of the day, whatever becomes the issue of the day, we will simply write a little mini CR to take care of that, and say, see, we are dealing with that issue. But we know it is only a slice. It doesn't take care of those small businesses that have applied for small business loans and maybe got this close to being able to realize their dream and now have it delayed. It doesn't deal with the critical functions of government in its entirety. Instead, it picks and chooses the winners and losers. Let me tell my colleagues, these ranchers who have experienced this loss are the losers under this system. It is time for this Congress to begin to do the responsible thing, which is open government, fund all of government, and start telling the American people that their interests are paramount. Start telling farmers and ranchers in the Dakotas who have experienced this tremendous loss that we care about their loss, that these programs have to work for them, and we have to do everything we can to make sure America is working again. I wish to close with one thought. In the great recession, one place where we have experienced a tremendous amount of opportunity and support has been in agriculture. Those States that had a good agricultural base had some of the lowest unemployment numbers in the country. Sixteen million jobs depend on agriculture in this country, and all they ask for in return is a little bit of help, a little bit of a safety net for guaranteeing a food supply in this country. But we can't seem to even deliver that obligation. We can't seem to deliver that promise. We have to tell the American people that their interests are ahead of any petty or partisan interest in this body and in this Congress. We have to get the Congress back working for the American people, particularly for the hard-hit ranchers and farmers of southeastern North Dakota and West River, SD. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, yesterday was a scary day on Capitol Hill. I was sitting in the Presiding Officer's chair and saw the bells ring, saw all the Capitol Police hustle our great pages in to protect them. Senator McCain was speaking, and like the veteran he is he continued to make his impassioned plea for help for the Syrian opposition as things swirled around. For members of our staff and Members of the Senate and the House and all the tourists and the visitors, I think the only thing that stood at that moment between them and potential harm was the Capitol Police and the Secret Service. I was struck by that. As a former attorney general who actually ran a law enforcement agency, I have a lot of great relationships with law enforcement people. In fact, I lost two officers in the line of duty during my tenure as attorney general, and I know the sacrifices, I know the fears of the families, and I know that every day, regardless of what is going on, some average, ordinary beautiful day can turn into a catastrophe where an officer loses their life. As we were standing there, I was visiting with one of the officers who was protecting the pages, and she told me a story. She told me a story about a uniformed Capitol Police officer who told her that morning that he has a stay-at-home wife and she is raising their children, and he has $115 in his checking account and doesn't know how he is going to get through this time period to the next paycheck. Even though they are here and some of them are working overtime, they are here without a paycheck and potentially might not receive a paycheck. So today we wear these buttons that say ``thank you.'' And I think about the hypocrisy of that. I think about the hypocrisy of buttons and galas and ribbons and all, and I want to say it is time for the Congress to not just pass out buttons that say ``thank you'' but pass out paychecks. That matters more. That is a real thank-you. That is real recognition of the value of those services. So it was with great outrage that I left this body last night as we were working through the challenges, and I realized the great humor of the Capitol Police. I was leaving the building and visiting with my guys at the door. He was giving me a hard time, and I said: I want to thank you for being here every day. I want to thank you for your sacrifice. I want to thank you for the trauma your family goes through. And he said: Just think how good I would be if you actually paid me. So I wish to say to all of my friends in the Capitol Police, who have been really truly friends--on some days I feel as if the only friendly face I see--that we care deeply. But it is not enough to wear a button. We have to start solving the problem of this impasse. We have to start recognizing that all of our people, all of our employees in the Federal Government--we have heard all day here this laundry list of let's do this and let's do this. I think we are up to 9, 10, and they are building, they are growing each one of these lists. There should be some point when we get to the tipping point where we realize that all of the functions are important. Everybody who is out there working is important, is essential, and the best way forward is to fund government. I want to build on what Senator Carper has been talking about because I think it is so important. I probably was sitting in the chair the first time this happened. As most of you know, I am new to the Senate and new to these procedures. And Senator Murray, chair of the Budget Committee, came out and she asked to appoint a budget conference committee. I know this process fairly well. You get the big targets, and then they get passed down to the appropriators, who then build the budget within those guidelines. And the Senator from Texas stood and objected. I thought, why would you object to the appointment of a conference committee with the House and with Representative Ryan, who has been a staunch conservative and a staunch proponent of targets that I would think the Senator from Texas agreed to? There was this long back-and-forth, and then Senator Murray sat down and that was the end of it. I was perplexed. I thought, well, when do we get to vote on this conference committee? When do we get to kind of tell her it is OK because there are a whole lot of people in this place who agree that we should go to conference--only to find out there is something called unanimous consent. The same people who have brought us to the brink of triggering a result of a slowdown in our economy with this behavior also have stopped the compromise. Now, adding to the hypocrisy of the day, we have the same claim for ``let's compromise.'' The easy compromise here is when Senator Murray comes to the floor and asks for a conference committee, we all agree to start doing it, we all agree to start doing our job. There has been a lot of attention on the so-called tea party shutdown and the tea party faction and calling them out and saying: You are a minority. But I would like to take a different tactic this afternoon, and I want to challenge the good people in the House Republican caucus who have already recognized that the best thing to do would be to pass a clean CR. I want to say I know what it is like to take a tough vote that your party doesn't agree with. I know what it is like to feel as though you have let people down who are part of a group that is helping and moving things along and that represents, kind of, your team to some degree. I know what that is like. I have been there and I know it doesn't feel good. But I know at the end of the day doing the right thing for what you believe your State believes in is a better feeling. I am suggesting maybe the minority, the minority of the majority that has an opportunity to step forward and take on this challenge and do the right thing, are those folks who know this is wrong, those folks who know over there that we could do better, that we have an opportunity to end this nonsense and move forward. There is a procedure for doing this, as I understand it. I want to speak to those folks who I think are good-hearted, who understand the impact on families, on children, on our Native Americans. I could tell you horror stories right now, where we are looking at a snowstorm in North Dakota and many of our native families rely on fuel assistance. The people who do that are not on the job. How are they going to heat their houses in the middle of this snowstorm? This is life and death. I do not see a special provision coming across for those folks. That is the problem when you piecemeal this. I think there are good people in the House Republican caucus who know that. If there is a way that they can in fact step forward, there will not be a lot of floor glory in their caucus. Trust me, I know. There won't be a lot of pats on the back and it might be pretty chilly for a long time. But you will have your conscience clear knowing that you did the right thing. I am hopeful we can get good people to step forward, to stand up to behavior that can only be described in some ways--it has been talked about as hostage-taking here. It is really bullying behavior when the small minority does this. Let's step forward. Let's do the right thing. I challenge you to do the right thing on behalf of the Native Americans, on behalf of my sheriff from Fargo, who was sent home from Quantico, the premier training facility. He waited years and years to be in the queue to get that training and now has been sent home. On behalf of law enforcement, on behalf of the Capitol Police, where we, yes, honor them today by wearing these buttons, let's honor them more by passing out paychecks. I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I will be very brief, recognizing the other urgent business the Senate needs to address, but I did want to associate myself with the remarks of the very able and capable chairwoman of the agriculture committee, Senator Stabenow. We have a disaster in the making. It is called the farm bill. Months ago this body passed a comprehensive farm bill recognizing a 50-year compromise, a 50-year association of nutrition assistance with the ability to provide disaster assistance to our farmers in this country. For 50 years that effort has served us very well. Today and this week in the House of Representatives, they will do something that is unprecedented in 50 years: They will segregate, pass separate bills, and do a disservice to struggling, unemployed, underemployed American families; that is, dramatically reduce the food stamp allocation. Food stamps are there when people need them in the same way that farm disaster payments are there when farmers need them. Anyone who thinks someone is living high on the hog, so to speak, on food stamps needs to spend time with people who are trying to make it work and feed their families on $1.40 per meal. We know that with a recovering economy we are going to see a dwindling number of those folks move on. Yet we see this move almost in a way that is going to challenge this long-term relationship that has basically enabled a great partnership between many of our urban and rural legislators, Senators, and Members of the House of Representatives, but also something that speaks to a very important value we have, which is that kids ought not to go hungry in this country. That is not who we are. We are not a country that allows children and families who are working, in many cases, to go hungry. And when they need that help, that temporary help they have been receiving, they ought to get it because it makes sense. It makes them better citizens, and it makes them better students. It tells us that, yes, when times are very tough--as they have been for so many American families--we will be there. Let's not let this happen. Let's fight back. Let's continue to have this conversation, and let's pass a comprehensive farm bill that recognizes the need to feed people as well as provide disaster assistance for farmers. I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. I think the first thing to talk about is the ability, first and foremost, to look at the mission and look at the event that led to the need for a discussion in this body and a discussion in this country about our relationship in Syria, and that was the use of chemical weapons by the Asad regime in their own home country against their own people. We know that activity is not only a crime against the Syrian people, but it is a crime against humanity. It is a crime against an international standard that has been in place since World War I and has been greatly honored because of the devastating effects of using chemical weapons. So when Senator Manchin and I looked at this--and we had long discussions with experts in the region--our first concern was securing those chemical weapons and what we could do to make sure those weapons would never again be used on any citizen of Syria and that we would not encourage or in any way give permission to another country to engage in that activity. That is fundamentally the greatest interest we have in securing some kind of resolution in the Congress--to address that concern. Unfortunately, what we saw was not a targeted resolution that addressed that specific problem. Plus, what we were presented with when we returned were two options: Do nothing, which both of us concluded we could not let an attack such as this go unresponded to. So do nothing or agree to imminent strikes, and that was not an option either of us saw as appropriate, nor was that an option we could agree to, so we looked for common ground, listening not only to the experts in the administration--the diplomats, the military experts, the national security folks--but also bringing a broader group of people together to discuss what is our mission, how do we accomplish this. The result of all of that is the resolution the Senator has before him, the resolution he and I have advanced for a discussion in this body. It seems critical to me that 1 week ago the interjecting of the chemical weapons ban and the Chemical Weapons Convention into this discussion in a very meaningful way, looking at what is in fact international law, was absolutely critical. Today, we have a very fluid and much different landscape diplomatically. We would like to think these kinds of discussions that have occurred all across the country have driven this, along with the President's discussion with Putin, along with the administration's efforts. So today we have a situation where we are glad to see some involvement, we are glad to see some movement, but it is absolutely critical we remind everyone that actions speak louder than words. We cannot trust, I don't think, agreements between Russia or Syria until we actually see Syria surrendering these weapons. But today we have an option on the table that is what we call the Manchin-Heitkamp alternative resolution, which can in fact engage us in a broader discussion, engage the international community. I would say that truly was the motivation behind our work. I think the Senator would agree with that.

Ms. HEITKAMP. To add another point to what Senator Manchin has spoken about, which is that the results have not been satisfactory--I think the other point we need to make is the results of all that interaction over this decade-plus of activity in this region have not been what was promised. It has made the American people perhaps cynical and very hesitant to rely on what is being said today. As one of the great honors, but also amazing pieces of sadness in my first days of being a Senator-elect, I attended two funerals for two National Guardsmen who were killed in action in Afghanistan. I remember sitting at the funerals and remember telling myself: Before you vote ever to engage in that kind of conflict, you absolutely need to look at alternatives. You owe it to our men and women in uniform. You owe it to the people of this country who have lost not only the lives of their brothers and sisters and family and friends but the people who have also invested American treasure. What we are seeking is a discussion, a broader discussion beyond two opposite and unacceptable alternatives. What we are seeing this week-- much to our appreciation--is in fact not just our proposal but other proposals coming forth, a broader discussion about what all the options are, and taking a look at how we can work together as a United States government, speak with one voice, and walk together to resolve this conflict. We cannot ignore that we have a national security interest in working together. We have a national security interest in addressing and resolving the current issues in front of us. That discussion cannot be done among a small group of Senators. It cannot be done in back rooms with a promise of ``trust us,'' because some of that trust has been broken over time. So a broad, open discussion as we are having here today I think is absolutely critical to reestablishing Americans' trust that we can in fact make the right decision in their interests and really in the interests of protecting our servicemen from chemical weapon attacks. That is obviously a great concern of ours. We need to continue to have this dialog and we need some kind of response. The question is how measured and what that response should be. I have very much appreciated the Senator's willingness to work with me and I thank the rest of the Members who have approached us who want to talk about this proposal and other proposals for their willingness to broaden their thinking about what those options are.

Ms. HEITKAMP. There are some who may question whether this is capitulation or whether in fact this is a lack of showing of American unity. How would the Senator respond to those concerns?

Ms. HEITKAMP. I think what we would say to the enemies of this country: Do not take from this democratic process and discussion a lack of resolve. We will stand together shoulder to shoulder. This is the process the Constitution gave us and the President has asked us to engage in. It shows the strength of this country, that we can have open debate, open disagreements, but at the end of the day we will stand together and stand strongly against our enemies. There should be no comfort taken in any way, shape, or form by the enemies of our country that it somehow weakens our country. In fact it strengthens our country to have this discussion and then stand shoulder to shoulder together. I do want to mention that during those times last week when we were attending the classified briefings, and a lot of those briefings were bicameral as well as bipartisan--I know we have that reputation today of being hyperpartisan and we cannot have meaningful and open discussion, it degenerates into pettiness and partisanship. I can tell you from my experience of sitting through every one of those briefings what I heard was reasoned discussion. What I heard was rational questioning. What I heard was an equal measure of restraint on both the Democrat and the Republican side and a search for common answers and commonality. It was that discussion that led us to introducing this type of resolution. For those who say this is just another example of dysfunctionality, it is too bad they could not look in at those discussions because I think they would have seen a Congress that was very engaged. They would have seen individual Members who were not looking to score political points but were looking for information so they could exercise the judgment that their people, their districts, or their States elected them to exercise. That is the process going through. It is a critical process but it cannot be done yes or no, no other options, and we are not going to have a broader discussion. That is why we are grateful for what is happening on the ground. We will wait to see if it is real. We will wait to see. It is not enough--talk is never enough. We have to see action. But in the meantime we will continue to have these discussions about what is in America's national security interests and how we exercise our collective will with a resolution that reflects our values and our commitment to this country and its national security.

Ms. HEITKAMP. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for the work he has done and the leadership he has shown. I believe that when we work together, collaborate, and actually begin the discussion about what is in America's national security interest and how we can fashion a position and a resolution that reflects that national security interest and open the opportunity for a broader dialog--not just two choices but a broader dialog--we can build consensus in this body. If we can build consensus in this body and if we can work forward to build consensus in America, we can, in fact, move this issue forward, and it might be an example of what we can do with our future. Again, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his participation, inclusion, and the work he has done. I believe it has not only offered a very significant alternative, but it has also set an example of where we can go.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. I think the first thing to talk about is the ability, first and foremost, to look at the mission and look at the event that led to the need for a discussion in this body and a discussion in this country about our relationship in Syria, and that was the use of chemical weapons by the Asad regime in their own home country against their own people. We know that activity is not only a crime against the Syrian people, but it is a crime against humanity. It is a crime against an international standard that has been in place since World War I and has been greatly honored because of the devastating effects of using chemical weapons. So when Senator Manchin and I looked at this--and we had long discussions with experts in the region--our first concern was securing those chemical weapons and what we could do to make sure those weapons would never again be used on any citizen of Syria and that we would not encourage or in any way give permission to another country to engage in that activity. That is fundamentally the greatest interest we have in securing some kind of resolution in the Congress--to address that concern. Unfortunately, what we saw was not a targeted resolution that addressed that specific problem. Plus, what we were presented with when we returned were two options: Do nothing, which both of us concluded we could not let an attack such as this go unresponded to. So do nothing or agree to imminent strikes, and that was not an option either of us saw as appropriate, nor was that an option we could agree to, so we looked for common ground, listening not only to the experts in the administration--the diplomats, the military experts, the national security folks--but also bringing a broader group of people together to discuss what is our mission, how do we accomplish this. The result of all of that is the resolution the Senator has before him, the resolution he and I have advanced for a discussion in this body. It seems critical to me that 1 week ago the interjecting of the chemical weapons ban and the Chemical Weapons Convention into this discussion in a very meaningful way, looking at what is in fact international law, was absolutely critical. Today, we have a very fluid and much different landscape diplomatically. We would like to think these kinds of discussions that have occurred all across the country have driven this, along with the President's discussion with Putin, along with the administration's efforts. So today we have a situation where we are glad to see some involvement, we are glad to see some movement, but it is absolutely critical we remind everyone that actions speak louder than words. We cannot trust, I don't think, agreements between Russia or Syria until we actually see Syria surrendering these weapons. But today we have an option on the table that is what we call the Manchin-Heitkamp alternative resolution, which can in fact engage us in a broader discussion, engage the international community. I would say that truly was the motivation behind our work. I think the Senator would agree with that.

Ms. HEITKAMP. To add another point to what Senator Manchin has spoken about, which is that the results have not been satisfactory--I think the other point we need to make is the results of all that interaction over this decade-plus of activity in this region have not been what was promised. It has made the American people perhaps cynical and very hesitant to rely on what is being said today. As one of the great honors, but also amazing pieces of sadness in my first days of being a Senator-elect, I attended two funerals for two National Guardsmen who were killed in action in Afghanistan. I remember sitting at the funerals and remember telling myself: Before you vote ever to engage in that kind of conflict, you absolutely need to look at alternatives. You owe it to our men and women in uniform. You owe it to the people of this country who have lost not only the lives of their brothers and sisters and family and friends but the people who have also invested American treasure. What we are seeking is a discussion, a broader discussion beyond two opposite and unacceptable alternatives. What we are seeing this week-- much to our appreciation--is in fact not just our proposal but other proposals coming forth, a broader discussion about what all the options are, and taking a look at how we can work together as a United States government, speak with one voice, and walk together to resolve this conflict. We cannot ignore that we have a national security interest in working together. We have a national security interest in addressing and resolving the current issues in front of us. That discussion cannot be done among a small group of Senators. It cannot be done in back rooms with a promise of ``trust us,'' because some of that trust has been broken over time. So a broad, open discussion as we are having here today I think is absolutely critical to reestablishing Americans' trust that we can in fact make the right decision in their interests and really in the interests of protecting our servicemen from chemical weapon attacks. That is obviously a great concern of ours. We need to continue to have this dialog and we need some kind of response. The question is how measured and what that response should be. I have very much appreciated the Senator's willingness to work with me and I thank the rest of the Members who have approached us who want to talk about this proposal and other proposals for their willingness to broaden their thinking about what those options are.