Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Grants Oversight and New Efficiency Act or the GONE Act. This legislation would require federal agencies to close out expired grant accounts with an empty balance.

``U.S. government spends $890,000 on nothing''--it sounds like a bad joke, but it is no laughing matter. The Washington Post recently reported, ``This year, the government will spend at least $890,000 on service fees for bank accounts that are empty. At last count, Uncle Sam has 13,712 such accounts with a balance of zero.''

According to an official government report, the Government Accountability Office, GA0, reported last year that the Payment Management System, the largest civilian payment system for grants managed by the Department of Health and Services, was charged $173,000 to maintain the Department of Health and Human Services' 28,000 expired grant accounts with a zero balance. Furthermore, the GAO estimates that if federal agencies were billed for the entire year, maintaining expired grant accounts with a zero balance for the entire year would cost $2 million in fees.

To tackle this problem, I am introducing the GONE Act, a bill with a commonsense goal: to increase accountability. My legislation would require the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to submit a report to Congress and the agency head including a list of each expired, empty grant account held by the Federal Government, recommend which grant accounts should be immediately closed, and for those grant accounts that have been expired for more than 90 days, to explain why it has not been closed out. It would also require the agency head to close out the expired, empty grant accounts and to update the Council on whether the grant accounts were closed. Additionally, the bill would require the Council to submit a follow-up report to Congress and the committees of jurisdiction on the status of grant accounts identified for closure.

While the fees currently spent on expired grant accounts may seem like a drop in the bucket, it nonetheless proves there is plenty of fat to trim. At a time when our country faces serious fiscal challenges and a soaring $17 trillion national debt, these fiscal blunders are more than foolish--they are dangerously irresponsible. This example of government waste underscores the critical importance of proper congressional oversight of federal agencies and their funding.

I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this simple, commonsense legislation to cut wasteful spending and help bring greater accountability to Washington.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Grants Oversight and New Efficiency Act or the GONE Act. This legislation would require federal agencies to close out expired grant accounts with an empty balance.

``U.S. government spends $890,000 on nothing''--it sounds like a bad joke, but it is no laughing matter. The Washington Post recently reported, ``This year, the government will spend at least $890,000 on service fees for bank accounts that are empty. At last count, Uncle Sam has 13,712 such accounts with a balance of zero.''

According to an official government report, the Government Accountability Office, GA0, reported last year that the Payment Management System, the largest civilian payment system for grants managed by the Department of Health and Services, was charged $173,000 to maintain the Department of Health and Human Services' 28,000 expired grant accounts with a zero balance. Furthermore, the GAO estimates that if federal agencies were billed for the entire year, maintaining expired grant accounts with a zero balance for the entire year would cost $2 million in fees.

To tackle this problem, I am introducing the GONE Act, a bill with a commonsense goal: to increase accountability. My legislation would require the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to submit a report to Congress and the agency head including a list of each expired, empty grant account held by the Federal Government, recommend which grant accounts should be immediately closed, and for those grant accounts that have been expired for more than 90 days, to explain why it has not been closed out. It would also require the agency head to close out the expired, empty grant accounts and to update the Council on whether the grant accounts were closed. Additionally, the bill would require the Council to submit a follow-up report to Congress and the committees of jurisdiction on the status of grant accounts identified for closure.

While the fees currently spent on expired grant accounts may seem like a drop in the bucket, it nonetheless proves there is plenty of fat to trim. At a time when our country faces serious fiscal challenges and a soaring $17 trillion national debt, these fiscal blunders are more than foolish--they are dangerously irresponsible. This example of government waste underscores the critical importance of proper congressional oversight of federal agencies and their funding.

I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this simple, commonsense legislation to cut wasteful spending and help bring greater accountability to Washington.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the series of historic reforms adopted by the Armed Services Committee to combat sexual assault in the military. The women have taken the lead on this matter. Sexual assault is not a gender issue, it is a violence issue.

I rise to voice support for a bipartisan amendment that I have offered with Senator McCaskill and Senator Ayotte to directly confront this violence, and I urge my colleagues to oppose any radical changes that would undermine justice for the victims and take away responsibility from commanders.

I am proud to have supported several measures to strengthen the rights of victims, hold perpetrators accountable, and strengthen oversight of military commanders to ensure that justice is delivered.

As a result of a truly bipartisan effort, the committee has put forth a bill that takes an unprecedented step of providing victims with a special victims' counsel to make certain they are receiving unbiased, independent legal advice. It strips commanders of the ability to overturn jury convictions, makes retaliation against victims a crime, requires dishonorable discharge or dismissal for those convicted of sexual assault, and provides critical civilian oversight.

Despite achieving these unprecedented reforms in committee, my colleagues and I continue to explore ways to enhance the current bill after the committee's work had concluded.

Senators McCaskill, Ayotte, and I introduced an amendment last week to expand upon the committee's progress. Our proposal extends current protections to service academies, boosts evaluation standards for commanders, and allows victims increased input. It also eliminates the good soldier defense in most cases.

These changes, both in our amendment and in the whole NDAA, are significant but, importantly, they are also serious and thoughtful. They are based on sound policy, not on political sound bites.

Rather than radically remaking the entire military justice system, which would carry significant risks, our proposals improve and update the current system. To do so, we applied lessons from history.

In 2006, Congress hastily changed portions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to address instances of rape. These changes disrupted victims' paths to justice, and Congress was forced to rewrite its own changes a few years later.

Congress can't afford to get something this important wrong. We cannot let our deep desire to solve this problem lead to imprecise solutions because victims suffer when we do. Any changes to the UCMJ should come after a deliberate and transparent process, with feedback from all sides. The McCaskill-Ayotte-Fischer amendment is the result of such a process, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Finally, I urge my colleagues to oppose any amendment that undermines a commander's responsibility for his or her troops. Senator McCaskill put it so well when she spoke on the floor earlier today: The amendment offered by my friend and colleague, the junior Senator from New York, offers a solution that is ``seductively simple,'' but its simplicity creates a host of complex policy problems.

In addition to technical concerns, I do not agree with the underlying goal of removing commanders from the military justice system. As Senator McCaskill noted, we know commanders pursue courts-martial when their legal advisers recommend against doing so. We know, based on the experiences of our allies, that removing commanders from that judicial process does not achieve the desired results. And we know that commanders have risen to the challenge in the past to confront contentious issues within their units, including integration. These facts lead me to conclude that the changes in this bill, combined with the reforms included within our amendment, will best serve the interests of victims and punish those responsible.

I commend the Senator from Missouri for her leadership on this issue, and I am grateful for the opportunity to work closely with her, Senator Ayotte, and many other colleagues to help our men and women in uniform.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of nearly 3,000 Nebraskans who have contacted my office with their concerns about ObamaCare. Their stories are, unfortunately, not unique: skyrocketing premiums and cancellation of plans they were promised they could keep.

Curt from Lincoln, NE, wrote to tell me he has seen his Blue Cross Blue Shield premiums rise a shocking 300 percent. David, a father living in Omaha, is facing a potential total increase of $16,000 a year for his family's coverage--$16,000. Another constituent from Bertrand, NE, will see his family's deductible more than double next year. He asked: ``How is this the Affordable Care Act?'' An apology now will not help the hard-working Nebraskans who have lost or who will soon lose their current coverage. One constituent wrote, ``Folks shouldn't need a second mortgage to pay for ObamaCare.'' I agree.

I yield the floor.

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

I rise today on behalf of all Nebraskans to say thank you to our Nation's veterans. Our Nation has long been blessed with men and women with integrity who step forward and answer the call to serve. Throughout times of war and times of peace, our country has maintained a military that has been the envy of the world. Each year Veterans Day is a time to thank and to honor the generations of patriots who have risked life and limb to protect our Nation and defend the cause of freedom. These heroes leave their homes--their comfortable lives with loved ones--for months and years at a time to fight wars in foreign lands. From the windy beaches of Normandy, to the snowy mountains of Korea, and the blistering deserts in the Middle East, our veterans have served fearlessly around the globe. Meanwhile, others, including members of the National Guard, have been stationed throughout the United States serving dutifully to protect the homeland.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have the unique privilege of interacting directly with our servicemembers. I have had the opportunity to meet soldiers, including many Nebraskans, working to protect the hard-fought gains in Afghanistan, and I have visited with troops stationed in Germany, Italy, and other allied nations. This past July I had the opportunity of a lifetime, celebrating Independence Day with our troops in Afghanistan. I expressed my gratitude for their work, and I assured them of my support in the Senate for that work.

While I am committed to ensuring our Active-Duty servicemembers have the training and the tools they need to fulfill their missions, I am equally committed to keeping the faith with our Nation's veterans. Each time I speak with one of Nebraska's many

wonderful veterans, I am reminded of the honor and the valor that decorates all of our men and women who have served. Each one has a unique and a very memorable story to tell.

Recently, I was humbled to take part in the inspiring journey of more than 130 Nebraska Korean war veterans to Washington, DC, through the Honor Flight Program. It was a privilege to help welcome them at the Korean War Memorial on the National Mall. All of our veterans deserve our appreciation, but it was especially important for me to acknowledge the heroic efforts of those men and women who fought in what is referred to as America's forgotten war. We are forever grateful to each and every American who has served, and we salute those who have paid the highest price.

Another way to honor our fallen and missing servicemembers is by showing our gratitude to those who are still with us today. As President Lincoln stated, it is our great charge ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan.''

As a Senator, I am dedicated to promoting policies that assist America's veterans when they return home and to help ease the transition back into a normal life. Many need care for their physical injuries as well as their emotional scars.

Despite possessing valuable skills, veterans also have difficulty finding employment after their return. We need to encourage businesses and organizations to utilize the talents of our Nation's veterans and to help them find employment in our local communities. It is not only the values but also the training and the discipline of our military personnel that make America's fighting force second to none.

I am pleased to report to Nebraskans that this year's National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, furthers the goal of helping servicemembers better translate the skills they gain in the military to a civilian job. Specifically, it helps ensure that servicemembers understand how their military skills effectively transfer to meet license or certification requirements for civilian careers.

It also requires the DOD to make available as much information as possible on the content of military training to the civilian credentialing agencies. Employers need to appreciate the vast array of skills and knowledge our veterans acquire during their Active-Duty service. My staff and I also stand ready to assist these men and women in navigating Federal agencies to get the assistance they may need.

Many of our States' veterans have contacted my office with a range of important needs that are not being met, promises that have yet to be kept. These requests range from acquiring important service treatment records, to securing benefits for veterans' spouses, and navigating the bureaucratic maze that plagues the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have a great track record in securing the needed assistance.

This year's NDAA also urges the Secretary of Defense to expedite efforts to integrate electronic health records between DOD and the VA.

When it is fully implemented, this should greatly shorten the time it takes for these servicemembers to have their information transferred to the VA and start receiving the benefits they are due.

We can never fully repay our men and women in uniform for the contributions they have made to our country, for their noble acts of service, but we can continue to do our best to honor their legacy. The peace we enjoy was hard earned. We owe our way of life to their service and their sacrifice. We will never forget and we are forever grateful.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to call attention to a problem that seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle recently. That issue is our unemployed and underemployed American youth.

On September 14, the Wall Street Journal published a must-read story entitled: ``Wanted: Jobs for the New 'Lost' Generation.'' I would like to read a brief excerpt from that article.

Like so many young Americans, Derek Wetherell is stuck. At

23 years old, he has a job, but not a career, and little

prospect for advancement. He has tens of thousands of dollars

in student debt but no college degree. He says he is more

likely to move back in with his parents than to buy a home,

and he doesn't know what he will do if his car--a 2001

Chrysler Sebring with well over 100,000 miles--breaks down.

``I'm kind of spinning my wheels,'' Mr. Wetherell says. ``We

can wishfully think that eventually it's going to get better,

but we really don't know, and that doesn't really help us

now.''

Derek Wetherell's experience is hardly unique. It is unfortunately an experience shared by Americans across this Nation, including in my home State of Nebraska. Despite promises of economic recovery, jobs remain scarce, particularly for young people. A quick survey of family members, neighbors, and friends reveals that too many adult children are now living at home, stuck in their parents' proverbial basements.

A study released by The Opportunity Nation shows that 6 million young people between 16 and 24 are neither in school nor are they working. That means roughly 15 percent of America's youth are idle when they should be gearing up for their most productive years. The study went on to state:

Youth unemployment is at its highest in more than a decade,

and young people in many European countries now have a better

shot at moving up the ladder from poor to rich than they do

in America.

The United States has always stood as the land of opportunity--the new home sought by immigrants from Europe and from around the world, risking life and limb for personal freedom and economic progress.

It seems that the ancient European capitals now offer young people more hope--a better chance at upward mobility--than our failing economy. That must change.

The jobless youth don't belong exclusively to any class, race, or gender. This problem does not discriminate. Nearly 1 in 4 African- American youth is unemployed, while the unemployment rate for young Latinos in September was 15.8 percent. Young men are unemployed at a rate of over 17 percent, while nearly 13 percent of young women are out of work.

Washington Monthly recently discussed the long-term impact of joblessness on our youth.

The consequences are dire for these young Americans.

They're not only more likely to have a hard time in the job

market; researchers have found that disconnection has

scarring effects on health and happiness that endure

throughout a lifetime.

Unemployed, uneducated youth are at greater risk for

criminality and incarceration, and they often go on to become

unreliable spouses and improvident parents.

The costs to society are also considerable.

The direct support expenses and lost tax revenues

associated with disengaged young people cost U.S. taxpayers

$93 billion in 2011 alone--a bill that will only compound as

the years progress.

In short, our weak economy is not only frustrating young Americans presently eager for work; it is jeopardizing their future. It is threatening more than just their ability to find present jobs; it is thwarting their efforts to build rewarding careers and to start families. They are getting a late start--if any start at all.

And what about those young Americans who have found work? According to a report by Accenture, over 40 percent of college graduates in the last 2 years are overqualified for their jobs. In other words, many of them are underemployed.

I believe all work has dignity. And while a college degree is important, it is not for everyone. But hard-working young people should have the opportunity to use their degrees and pursue their passions. They are not asking for special treatment--they are just asking for a chance. This economy is holding them back.

As if young people weren't facing enough adversity, now they are told they are legally required to purchase costly health insurance. In fact, the new law completely depends on their participation. Yet the report on premiums released by the Department of Health and Human Services shows that many young people will not qualify for subsidies to make their premiums affordable.

A study published by the National Center for Public Policy Research found that subsidies did not exist for people from 18 to 34 years of age in 11 of 15 exchanges. These young people will be required to pay the full price of their premiums, which we all know are skyrocketing around this country. The American Academy of Actuaries published an article noting that the young people who don't qualify for subsidies will see an increase in costs of 42 percent.

Tom from Omaha wrote me to tell me about his 26-year-old son, who had been paying $159 a month for his health coverage. ``Effective January 1, 2014, his rate will be $231. What is affordable about this?'' Tom added that his son's deductible would ``increase by $3,000 and his out- of-pocket costs by $3,850.'' We are no longer dealing with projections, we are dealing with real people.

The National Center for Public Policy Research also found that even with the subsidies, about 3.7 million young people would actually save at least $500 by forgoing insurance and paying the fine, and as many as 3 million young people would save at least $1,000 by opting out of ObamaCare.

The bottom line? We have record numbers of unemployed young Americans now being forced to purchase health plans they do not want and, in some cases, with coverage they don't even need. We need to empower, not burden, young Americans.

The American dream of launching a career, starting a family, buying a home, and forging a brighter future is not some quaint relic of a bygone era. The dream is alive and well. Our young people are still dreaming. It is time for us to honor our duty to ensure that the next generation has the tools and experience to succeed, to keep America strong, and to pursue that dream. Right now, we are falling woefully short. But we can do better. Our children and our grandchildren are counting on us. This generation isn't lost yet, and I am here to fight for them.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to give voice to frustrated Nebraskans. I rise to testify to the simple truth that a government should not intentionally make life harder for its people. I rise to say: Enough. Enough press conferences. Enough brinkmanship. Enough dividing people of good will against one another.

I am still pretty new here, but I can say that in Nebraska and in so many other States across this Nation we actually work together--and not just on small bills but also on the big issues. I urge my colleagues to remember where we came from.

While I served in the Nebraska Legislature, we dealt with a major budget shortfall. We didn't go on TV or Twitter or fight; we legislated and we fixed the problem. That is the Nebraska way. We roll up our sleeves, we cut through the talking points, and we get to work.

Nebraskans are pragmatic. They are well informed, and they expect results. So when Nebraskans look at the dysfunction we have here in Washington, they are frustrated, and I am too. I am very frustrated. I am frustrated that this Congress can't pass appropriations bills that comply with the law. I am frustrated that this Congress cannot agree on a budget. I am frustrated with crisis management instead of responsible governance. I am frustrated with being told one thing only to learn it is just not true. I am frustrated with the willful ignorance that goes on in Washington when it comes to our debt. And I am frustrated with the lack of solutions.

The American people do not want us to just stand in opposition; they want us to put forth constructive ideas to solve problems. As a result of Congress's failure to agree on a spending plan, the government is shut down. The result? Well, in yesterday's Omaha World Herald there was a report that Nebraska farmers are unable to cash checks when they bring their grain in after harvest. The article noted:

State law requires elevators to include a lender's name on

a check when a farmer has a loan against the grain. With no

one at Farm Service Agency offices because of the shutdown,

checks can't be cashed when the lender is the FSA.

``We've got millions of dollars of grain checks out there

that farmers need,'' said Dan Poppe, president of the Archer

(Neb.) Cooperative Credit Union, with locations in Archer,

Dannebrog and Central City.

He said entire rural economies count on the money.

``It impacts not only our farmers, who are relying heavily

on the money, but also the local grocery store, hardware

store, the feed and seed,'' Poppe said.

It is not just farmers and ranchers, it is also our manufacturers and our investors. A constituent from Waco, NB, wrote:

I am a Dow employee living in your district. This impasse

is beginning to threaten Dow's investment in new U.S.

manufacturing. Not only will a continued delay push back

Dow's plans to create thousands of new American jobs, it will

harm Dow's competitiveness and directly impact me and my

family. Greater economic certainty will help Dow, its

employees, and our State thrive.

The wife of a Federal law enforcement officer from Gretna wrote:

We are a single income family. We have a 2 and 3 year old

and one more on the way. I am due in November. This shutdown

will leave us unable to pay our bills.

A 23-year-old Department of Agriculture employee emailed me saying:

My wife works two jobs to help make ends meet, but we still

live paycheck to paycheck. If this shutdown is not resolved

within the next few days, we will be devastated financially.

A U.S. Air Force veteran wrote to tell me:

I applied for Social Security disability assistance on the

15th of August and my claim had gone for medical review on

the 26th of August. I have no money, and I just found out

yesterday that because of the shutdown SSA claims are on

hold.

A furloughed Federal worker from Omaha called my office to say: We are all tired. We are tired of not getting a budget until the last minute. We are all tired. You guys need to do your job.

I agree. I hear these same messages over and over. Nebraskans are tired of the name calling and the blame games. They want to see government work, and they want to see it work well. They are not fooled by the rhetoric, and they expect us to govern responsibly. I agree. That is why I am talking with my colleagues--not publicly in front of the cameras but privately--to see if we can forge a way forward. But I believe we have to do more than just open the government. That is just the basics. We have to address our $17 trillion debt. It is smothering this country, it is jeopardizing our national security, and it is a threat to our children's future.

Congress will soon vote on increasing the debt ceiling--the sixth debt limit increase in the past 5 years. Our national debt has almost doubled since 2006, and our debt limit has grown twice as much as our economy in the past 2 years. Shouldn't the opposite be true? Meanwhile, our economy's lethargic recovery continues sluggishly along at a rate of 1 to 2 percent. This is unacceptable.

Instead of growing our economy by reducing spending, cutting regulations, and overhauling an outdated tax code,

Congress has continued to spend money we just don't have.

I didn't run for office to shut down the government. I ran for office to help hard-working Americans get back to work. I ran for this office to stand for middle-class families who aren't asking government for a hand up, they are just asking that the government stop holding them down. Nebraskans want to know they can provide for their families, and I don't think that is asking too much.

Make no mistake. High public debt depresses economic growth, which in turn dampens job creation. Ironically, our country's debt crisis comes as the Congressional Budget Office is predicting that tax revenues will be at an alltime high--$2.7 trillion in tax revenues. The problem isn't that we have too little revenue, the problem is that we are spending too much.

Part of why Nebraskans are frustrated is that our problems are so clear. We know exactly what they are. There is no mystery here. The American people know you can't keep spending twice what you make. They live within a budget--a budget that must balance--and they expect government to do the same. Our government is a long way from a balanced budget, but we can work at a minimum to try to get there.

Despite these realities, we are not moving forward. For the past several weeks, Members of Congress, the President, and the press have been participants in a circus. After 9 days, there is still no end in sight. Let me repeat that. After 9 days of a government shutdown, there is still no end in sight.

That is not to say there aren't some good ideas out there. Several of my colleagues have offered a number of commonsense proposals that do have broad support. These ideas include repeal of the medical device tax, which was adopted by the Senate as an amendment to its budget resolution by an overwhelming vote of 79 to 20. And this happened in March. Other ideas include a commitment to reducing spending, as required by current law, but we would increase the flexibility for Federal agencies to make smarter cuts. We all agree sequestration is a very clumsy way to cut spending.

That is why we need to provide program managers with the ability to determine which programs are wasteful or less efficient.

It is a matter of setting priorities so we can make wise decisions. That is the Nebraska way, and that is what we need to do in Washington as well.

Senator Collins' sequestration proposal would also allow Congress to continue to exercise oversight on all spending and related cuts. That is important. Even the President has put forth ideas to cut spending by $400 billion over the next 10 years. These offers could give us the framework for a real discussion.

Yet we remain at an impasse, unable to move forward. A nation of movers, thinkers, innovators, and entrepreneurs should not be caught in neutral. We should move forward--always forward, and always building a better future. We are the single greatest nation the world has ever known. We have stood as a sentinel of liberty and economic prosperity for over 200 years, yet we find ourselves no longer able to perform even the most basic functions of government. That is not acceptable. Our forefathers, our constituents, and our children and our grandchildren deserve better.

I am ready to move forward. I am tired of waiting, and I am willing to work with any of my colleagues to find a reasonable solution. So let's get to work.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of the millions of middle-class families across America who feel they have been left behind. Too many of these people are decent, hard-working folks who are unemployed or underemployed. Too many have adult children stuck living at home because, despite graduating from college, they are struggling to find work. And now, because of ObamaCare, these same young adults-- many of whom are older than 26--will be forced to pay more taxes or purchase costly government-defined health insurance.

In spite of the administration's best salesmanship, the law remains extremely unpopular. A poll conducted by the Omaha World-Herald last fall showed 55 percent of registered voters still favored the full repeal of ObamaCare. Recent national polls indicate a similar disapproval rating for the law all across the country. Part of the reason for the public's continued opposition is the harm that ObamaCare is causing our economy.

Let me share a story of one woman, a small business owner named Eileen Marrison. I had the pleasure of meeting Eileen in August when I was traveling my State, and I visited with her in Papillion, NE. The Marrison family owns and operates Two Men and a Truck. Those are franchises in Omaha and Lincoln, NE. They have 30 employees in Lincoln and 76 in Omaha. The Marrisons provide paychecks for local families, and they have earned the respect of their communities.

Eileen Marrison, the matriarch of the family, presently offers health insurance to full-time employees--36 individuals working 35 to 45 hours per week. She foots more than half the cost of that coverage. Since ObamaCare changes the definition of a full-time employee, lowering the threshold to 30 hours per week from 40 hours, Eileen now employs 76 full-time equivalents, triggering the employer mandate. Now she must offer affordable coverage as defined by ObamaCare. She has to offer that to all of her employees working 30 hours or more.

Eileen has been taking care of her employees for years, and she wants to continue to do so. However, ObamaCare's mandate is now placing additional burdens on this family business which will require Eileen to make tough decisions or incur those harmful costs.

I received thousands of phone calls, e-mails, and letters echoing Eileen's concerns and urging me to repeal all or pieces of the law.

Another constituent, a 61-year-old retired schoolteacher from Beatrice, NE, recently wrote me to share that he had just received a letter from his insurance carrier. The news was that premiums were set to spike 60 percent, to $939 a month. That is half of his monthly pension check. He says, ``We are dismayed and disappointed.''

Another Nebraskan, Roger from Hartington, NE, wrote:

I just wanted to let you know I got my letter from Blue

Cross of Nebraska. My premium went up $160 per month and my

total out-of-pocket risk increased from $5,000 to $12,700.

Roger continued:

On the positive side, my menopausal wife and I now have

maternity, drug, alcohol, pediatric, dental, and vision care!

President Obama promised our costs would go down and we

could keep our insurance if we liked it. I liked my old plan.

I want it back!

We no longer have to rely on these testimonials to prove that ObamaCare is driving up the price of insurance premiums.

Yesterday, the Federal Department of Health and Human Services released its long-awaited report on ObamaCare premium prices offered on the exchanges. The numbers for Nebraska proved that premiums will rise dramatically. In its analysis of the data, Forbes magazine published an article noting there was a 279-percent increase when comparing the cheapest plans offered to Nebraska men. For Nebraska women, there was a 227-percent increase when comparing the cheapest plans. That is more than triple the current rate. Those numbers are absolutely staggering. The average premium for a 27-year-old for the most basic plan, the bronze plan, is $159 before tax credits. Currently, that same 27-year- old can find a premium for $68 in Nebraska. So we are looking at a significant increase in costs.

Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the report:

ObamaCare will increase underlying insurance rates for

younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for

younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Despite

these rates, the plan includes fewer in network doctors and

hospitals than current plans. And many of the lowest-cost

plans will likely carry high deductibles.

One insurer found that ``for the cheapest bronze plans, the average deductible was $5,000.'' How is that possibly affordable?

In August the administration announced another major delay, this time to the part of the health care law limiting patients' out-of-pocket expenses. Rather than capping costs for individuals and families, as required by the law, the delay of this key provision guarantees ObamaCare will be anything but affordable.

Of course, there are many other problems with the law beyond the increases in premiums, which is why I have been promoting the complete repeal of the law, and I support defunding it.

For example, there are serious concerns about possible identity theft for those participating in the new health exchanges. Why? Because the administration failed to independently test the security for its Federal Data Services Hub, which will store huge amounts of people's private, personal information.

The report released by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general stated:

Several critical tasks remain to be completed in a short

period of time, such as the final independent testing of the

hub's security controls, remediating security vulnerabilities

identified during testing, and obtaining the security

authorization decision for the hub before opening the

exchanges.

The administration has until this Tuesday to complete these critical tasks. I, for one, remain skeptical that these tasks will be completed in time, opening up security risks for individuals who do participate in the exchanges.

Today the administration tacitly admitted once again that ObamaCare is not ready for prime time when it announced another delay. This time they are postponing online enrollment in some of the small business exchanges scheduled to open on Tuesday.

The irony, of course, is that news of this latest delay broke as the President was delivering a speech criticizing Republicans for their effort to defund or delay the law altogether. It seems reasonable to ask: Where is the delay for the American people? Where is the delay for middle-class citizens such as the 61-year-old retired teacher from Beatrice, NE? Is that an extreme position? I certainly don't think so.

In short, this law remains fatally flawed. The American people deserve better than selective delays, unfair treatment, and broken promises.

For me, the fight over ObamaCare has nothing to do with politics or with ideology. It has to do with standing for small business owners such as Eileen Marrison. It is about standing for middle-class families who aren't asking government for a hand up, they are just asking that the government stop holding them down.

We are a country that looks to build a brighter future for our people. We are a country that looks to help and lift up people. That is what America is all about. It is about giving voice to millions of Americans--those middle-class families who are feeling left behind--who would rather have the Federal Government focusing on ways to create jobs so they can bring home a decent paycheck.

Let me be perfectly clear: I have no intention of standing down in this fight. It is why I was sent here, and it is what Nebraskans expect from me. It is the only way we will ever be able to turn our economy around and build that brighter future for all Americans.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss legislation that I am introducing in the U.S. Senate today, the Judgment Fund Transparency Act.

As my colleagues may or may not know, the Judgment Fund is administered by the Treasury Department and is used to pay certain court judgments and settlements against the Federal Government. It is essentially an unlimited amount of money available to pay for Federal Government liability. It is not subject to the annual appropriations process, and even more remarkably, the Treasury Department has no reporting requirements, so these funds are paid out with very little oversight or scrutiny.

This is no small matter, as the Judgment Fund disburses billions of dollars in payments per year. In recent years, Treasury has paid the following from the Fund: fiscal year 2012--$2.9 billion, fiscal year 2011--$2.2 billion, fiscal year 2010--$1.1 billion, fiscal year 2009-- $2.3 billion, fiscal year 2008--$790 million, fiscal year 2007--$1 billion, and fiscal year 2006--$628 million.

Before the Judgment Fund was established, claims against the government were assigned to a Congressional committee that would appropriate funds in order to pay liability, attorneys' fees, and costs associated with the claim. Once the Judgment Fund was established in 1956, however, Congressional committees stopped appropriating funds explicitly for this purpose. Now, if a government agency does not use its own annual budget to cover the costs, Treasury simply pays the bill out of the Fund.

Because the Treasury Department has no binding reporting requirements, few public details exist about where the funds are going and why, and the information that is readily accessible is only made available at the administration's discretion.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce highlighted the nature of this problem in an article about the Judgment Fund written by Bill Kovacs on February 1, 2013:

Without knowing who is being paid under the Judgment Fund

and for what reason, not to mention the validity of the

claim, Congress cannot oversee and control the federal

governments litigation costs, risks and exposure. Simply,

without disclosure Congress is being denied the opportunity

to take effective mitigation measures against improper agency

action that results in claims against the federal government.

Non-disclosure of Judgment Fund payments hides from Congress

what might be excessive markers of agency mismanagement and/

or structural defects in statutes and programs. And due to a

lack of reporting, Congress is denied the opportunity to

understand claims against agencies that might shed light on

how to improve agency operations.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association has also decried the lack of oversight of the Judgment Fund by stating, ``Certain groups continuously sue the federal government, and Treasury simply writes a check to foot the bill without providing Members of Congress and American taxpayers basic information about the payment.''

The Judgment Fund Transparency Act seeks to address these problems by requiring a public accounting of the taxpayer funds distributed via the Judgment Fund to parties who bring successful claims against the Federal government.

The Judgment Fund Transparency Act promotes transparency and oversight by requiring the Treasury Department to post on a publicly accessible website the claimant, counsel, agency, fact summary, and payment amount for each claim from the Judgment Fund, unless a law or court order otherwise prohibits the disclosure of such information.

The Judgment Fund Transparency Act would increase transparency and oversight of the Fund and would provide Members of Congress and the public with the ability to see how taxpayers' dollars are being spent.

I am proud to introduce the Judgment Fund Transparency Act today and invite my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss legislation that I am introducing in the U.S. Senate today, the Judgment Fund Transparency Act.

As my colleagues may or may not know, the Judgment Fund is administered by the Treasury Department and is used to pay certain court judgments and settlements against the Federal Government. It is essentially an unlimited amount of money available to pay for Federal Government liability. It is not subject to the annual appropriations process, and even more remarkably, the Treasury Department has no reporting requirements, so these funds are paid out with very little oversight or scrutiny.

This is no small matter, as the Judgment Fund disburses billions of dollars in payments per year. In recent years, Treasury has paid the following from the Fund: fiscal year 2012--$2.9 billion, fiscal year 2011--$2.2 billion, fiscal year 2010--$1.1 billion, fiscal year 2009-- $2.3 billion, fiscal year 2008--$790 million, fiscal year 2007--$1 billion, and fiscal year 2006--$628 million.

Before the Judgment Fund was established, claims against the government were assigned to a Congressional committee that would appropriate funds in order to pay liability, attorneys' fees, and costs associated with the claim. Once the Judgment Fund was established in 1956, however, Congressional committees stopped appropriating funds explicitly for this purpose. Now, if a government agency does not use its own annual budget to cover the costs, Treasury simply pays the bill out of the Fund.

Because the Treasury Department has no binding reporting requirements, few public details exist about where the funds are going and why, and the information that is readily accessible is only made available at the administration's discretion.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce highlighted the nature of this problem in an article about the Judgment Fund written by Bill Kovacs on February 1, 2013:

Without knowing who is being paid under the Judgment Fund

and for what reason, not to mention the validity of the

claim, Congress cannot oversee and control the federal

governments litigation costs, risks and exposure. Simply,

without disclosure Congress is being denied the opportunity

to take effective mitigation measures against improper agency

action that results in claims against the federal government.

Non-disclosure of Judgment Fund payments hides from Congress

what might be excessive markers of agency mismanagement and/

or structural defects in statutes and programs. And due to a

lack of reporting, Congress is denied the opportunity to

understand claims against agencies that might shed light on

how to improve agency operations.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association has also decried the lack of oversight of the Judgment Fund by stating, ``Certain groups continuously sue the federal government, and Treasury simply writes a check to foot the bill without providing Members of Congress and American taxpayers basic information about the payment.''

The Judgment Fund Transparency Act seeks to address these problems by requiring a public accounting of the taxpayer funds distributed via the Judgment Fund to parties who bring successful claims against the Federal government.

The Judgment Fund Transparency Act promotes transparency and oversight by requiring the Treasury Department to post on a publicly accessible website the claimant, counsel, agency, fact summary, and payment amount for each claim from the Judgment Fund, unless a law or court order otherwise prohibits the disclosure of such information.

The Judgment Fund Transparency Act would increase transparency and oversight of the Fund and would provide Members of Congress and the public with the ability to see how taxpayers' dollars are being spent.

I am proud to introduce the Judgment Fund Transparency Act today and invite my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Lincoln Highway resolution, which celebrates the centennial of the Nation's first transcontinental highway.

In America, our highways are a part of our heritage. They connect people, transport goods, promote tourism, and support economies.

I developed an appreciation for our highway heritage at an early age from my father, Jerry Strobel. After returning from service in World War II, he dedicated his career to serving Nebraskans at the State Department of Roads. As a civil servant for 45 years, he worked many years as a deputy state engineer and went on to serve as director and State engineer for the Nebraska Department of Roads from 1987 to 1991. He was a member of the Road and Transportation Builders Association and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Just as I have my father to thank for developing my appreciation of roads and bridges, our vital infrastructure, we as a country have Carl Fisher of Indiana to thank for developing our Nation's first transcontinental highway. A century ago, he conceived and promoted the idea of a highway that would ``stimulate as nothing else could the building of enduring highways everywhere that will not only be a credit to the American people but that will also mean much to American agriculture and American commerce.''

Carl Fisher was an early automobile enthusiast who believed ``the automobile won't get anywhere until it has good roads to run on.'' He was zealous in his pursuit of his dream of a coast-to-coast highway, urging many of his friends in the auto industry to help promote the project.

The highway was named for one of Fisher's heroes, President Abraham Lincoln. The first highway to connect our country became the first national memorial to the leader whose courage kept our country connected.

The Lincoln Highway route was dedicated in 1913. Spanning from Times Square in New York City to Lincoln Park in San Francisco, the Lincoln Highway--affectionately known as America's Main Street--originally spanned 3,466 miles through 13 States, including the great State of Nebraska.

The Lincoln Highway brought economic development, tourism, and adventure to every community it touched and served as one of the inspirations for the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956.

The Lincoln Highway Association will host the official Lincoln Highway 100th Anniversary Tours and Celebration. Two tours will start simultaneously in New York City and San Francisco and meet in Kearney, NE, which is 1,733 miles from both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

I am proud the Senate can help commemorate the important role that the Lincoln Highway has played in developing our country's highway heritage by celebrating the centennial of our first transcontinental highway.

Of course.

Madam President, I rise today to express my deep disappointment with the current immigration reform legislation and the extremely limited opportunity for Senators to amend this bill. Although I was not a Member of the Senate in 2009, I watched the debate on ObamaCare closely. I was amazed the world's greatest deliberative body could vote on such a massive change to Federal policy without having time to read or adequately amend the bill.

Failure to fully comprehend the consequences--intended or otherwise-- left many Americans skeptical, and rightfully so. We were told the need to act justified passage of this massive bill, and we were admonished that we needed to pass the bill to find out what is in it. The American people were not pitched sound policy, the American people were pitched sound bites. Public polling suggests the American people still haven't bought it, and with good reason.

A few years later, Americans are starting to learn the devastating, real-life impact of the flawed health care policy, including the loss of current benefits and the sticker shock of rising premiums. The litany of broken promises seems endless. Yet here we are again, another dire problem in desperate need of a solution, and this time it is immigration.

I agree, and Nebraskans agree, we must address the problem of illegal immigration. The status quo is unacceptable. Our border remains dangerously insecure, and 11 million illegal immigrants currently enjoy de facto amnesty.

We are told there is only one solution--rather, we are only allowed to vote on one solution that has been agreed upon behind closed doors by the majority leader and a small group of Senators. We are told we have no choice but to pass this bill.

The pundits in Washington tell us the failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform will leave the Republican Party in an uncertain electoral wilderness. Well, I, for one, am more concerned about the future of this Nation--the future America I will leave to my children and my grandchildren--than I am about any political party's electoral prospects.

We are told that simply devoting tens of billions of dollars, with no plan, will solve the problem.

We have tried throwing big money at big problems in the past. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

Some have suggested there has been plenty of time to read the revised bill. They argue there are only 119 pages of changes that have been added to the 1,200-page legislation before us. But those changes are spread across and throughout the entire language of this bill. There have been little fixes here and there. But if you blink, you might miss an important word that has been dropped or a clause that has been added, and the result is a lasting effect for generations to come.

Some of these changes include special carve-outs similar to the cornhusker kickback that helped bring ObamaCare across the finish line. Nebraskans know exactly what I am talking about. These new carve-outs include special treatment for the seafood industry, special treatment for Hollywood, and extensions of the failed stimulus program.

I am disappointed the majority leader has once again rushed a bill of this magnitude and impact. It is another artificial deadline imposed by the leader, so members can make it back for some backyard barbecues. That is disappointing.

I don't sit on the Judiciary Committee. The only opportunity I and 82 other Members of the Senate have to offer amendments to reform the flawed aspects of this bill is through floor debate. Yet we are being denied that opportunity by the majority leader. So far, we have only voted on nine amendments. Given the emotional, controversial, and complicated nature of this issue, reforms are not made easily. We have a duty to make sure we get it right and that we avoid the mistakes of the past.

I have always believed that before we address any form of legislation that deals with legalization for our undocumented population, we must first fully secure the border. Without a fully secure border, the United States will find itself in the same dire straits down the road. Yet the amendment offered by Senators Schumer, Corker, and Hoeven falls short of this very necessary goal. We need a proposal that brings about verifiable, measurable results along the southern border.

I support a carefully crafted border security plan that is strategy driven, cost effective, accountable, and responsive to the needs of law enforcement officials, and those law enforcement officials have expressed concerns with the legislation before us.

The attempt of the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment to reach a compromise on border security metrics has resulted in vague ineffective standards. The border security amendment I filed

would provide needed oversight to ensure border security goals are being achieved and maintained in a timely fashion.

The border security amendment I filed requires that the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Commissioner of the Customs and Border Patrol submit a written certification that all border goals have been met. The Homeland Security inspector general must also sign off on certification. And, finally, congressional approval must be obtained.

Importantly, the definition of operational control in my amendment would maintain the current law's definition, rather than watering it down. But my amendment hasn't received a vote.

The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment also fails to require a biometric entry and exit system at land, air, and sea ports. Instead, it simply provides a basic electronic screening system--and only at sea and air ports, not land ports of entry.

This is absolutely unacceptable--and it is remarkably weaker than the border security provisions in the 2006 and 2007 comprehensive immigration bills, which required implementation of a biometric entry- exit system.

The border security amendment I filed implements a biometric entry- exit system at all points and ports of entry. But my amendment hasn't received a vote.

Border security is a question of national security. It is not a position that can be watered down or compromised. The Schumer-Corker- Hoeven amendment does just that.

We also need to make sure we are being fiscally responsible. Last time I checked, we are still $17 trillion in debt. Yet this amendment throws $46.3 billion at border security with no plan from the Department of Homeland Security detailing how that money is going to be used. There is no clear justification for the amount detailed in this request. There is absolutely no strategy driving this funding request.

There is also not nearly enough accountability. The reporting requirements to Congress are toothless. I reject--and I suspect Nebraskans reject--the idea that massive amounts of spending alone are the solution to our border security problem.

In addition to the lack of strategy behind the funding, I am concerned this legislation provides legalization first and border security second. Specifically, this legislation creates a loophole allowing certain people who have overstayed their nonimmigrant visas to obtain a green card without returning home. The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment also creates a number of loopholes for criminal aliens to remain in our country.

Under their proposal the Secretary of Homeland Security has broad authority to waive deportations for certain criminal activity. For example, it would allow many members of criminal gangs to gain entry and the legal right to remain in the country.

In a written statement, Immigration and Customs Enforcement council president Chris Crane stated:

The 1,200 page substitute bill before the Senate will

provide instant legalization and a path to citizenship to

gang members and other dangerous criminal aliens, and

handcuff ICE officers from enforcing immigration laws in the

future. It provides no means of effectively enforcing visa

overstays which account for almost half of the nation's

illegal immigration crisis.

The list of problems goes on.

In short, this legislation and the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment remains fatally flawed. The American people demand--and they deserve-- better policy.

I am committed to working on lasting solutions that will reform our immigration system once and for all. But let me be clear: I will not support legislation simply because it might be vogue or politically expedient or could ingratiate me with the inside-the-Beltway club. I vote for legislation if it is sound policy, if it will improve the lives of hard-working taxpayers, and if it reflects the values of Nebraskans. This legislation has a long way to go.

Yes, I will.

I have been, at the Texas border.

That was in the early 2000s.

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

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to express great concern about the announcement regarding plans to drastically reduce the U.S. nuclear deterrent by over one-third.

The strategic basis for this reduction is entirely unclear. The President must provide Members of Congress additional information on the basis and the implications of his announcement. General Chilton, then-commander of U.S. Strategic Command, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2010. He said the New START treaty gave the United States ``exactly what is needed'' to achieve its national security objectives.

Given the assessments of our commanders, I am highly skeptical and gravely concerned about such dramatic reductions in a world of increasing danger and proliferating threats. Regardless of how one feels about these particular force levels, I believe there is broad concern about any unilateral reductions in U.S. nuclear forces.

Mr. President, 2\1/2\ years ago, after lengthy deliberation and contentious debate, this body ratified the New START treaty which reduced deployed U.S. nuclear weapons from between 2,200 and 1,700 to no more than 1,550. This debate was good for the Nation and produced a bipartisan consensus on arms control and nuclear modernization. Now this administration is calling for reducing U.S. nuclear forces by one- third, and it remains an open question if the Senate will even have a chance to weigh in on this decision. I sure hope we have the opportunity.

As Commander in Chief, it is the President's prerogative to adjust nuclear forces. But as Vice President Biden, then serving in this body as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, wrote in a 2002 letter to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell:

With the exception of the SALT I agreement, every

significant arms control agreement during the past three

decades has been transmitted pursuant to the treaty clause of

the Constitution . . . we see no reason whatsoever to alter

this practice.

Secretaries of Defense Panetta and Hagel also testified before Congress

that nuclear reductions, if undertaken at all, should be the product of negotiated, bilateral, verifiable agreements.

I believe a change of this magnitude must be reviewed by Congress and such dramatic reductions must only be made in concert with other nuclear powers and the input of our allies.

Moreover, I believe it is premature to announce such dramatic reductions when the United States has yet to fulfill its obligations under the New START treaty. Currently, our nuclear force levels exceed the New START limits. Instead of providing a plan to implement the reductions required to comply with that treaty--something I and numerous other Members of Congress have repeatedly asked for--the President opted to promise the world massive additional cuts.

I wish to repeat: We don't know how we are going to go from about 1,650 to 1,550 warheads--a reduction of about 100. But instead of answering that question, the President has stated his intention to get rid of another 500 or so warheads. That is one-third of our arsenal.

What is more, the President has apparently disregarded the advice of Congress, the bipartisan 2009 Perry-Schlesinger Commission, and his own Nuclear Posture Review that additional nuclear reductions address the dramatic imbalance of Russian tactical nuclear weapons. Congress has expressed its view on this subject several times, and the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012 clearly stated the sense of Congress that:

If the United States pursues arms control negotiations with

the Russian Federation, such negotiations should be aimed at

the reduction of Russian deployed and nondeployed

nonstrategic nuclear weapons and increased transparency of

such weapons.

While the announcement mentioned these weapons, their reduction was clearly a separate afterthought, not the primary arms control objective this body insisted it be.

In closing, I must remind my colleagues that the Senate approved the New START treaty on the condition of modernizing our aging nuclear deterrent. Although the promise was made before I entered the Senate, it was a promise made to this body and to the American people, and it is a promise I will make sure is kept. Modernization funding is more than 30 percent below the target set by the President during New START's ratification. That is unacceptable.

I hope the President will address these issues in the coming days and focus on building a strong bipartisan consensus on these issues and pursuing commonsense objectives. Rushing toward dramatic reduction is a bad policy. It is a bad policy for any President, and it could have grave consequences for our national security.

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