Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to speak on amendment No. 1169, a bipartisan amendment that Senator Carper and I offered to the farm bill to fix bureaucratic hurdles that impact farmers' access to seeds. Like so many of the amendments that were offered to this farm bill, our amendment unfortunately was not considered despite broad, bipartisan support and a strong need for the legislation.

Legislation is needed to ensure that American farmers continue to have sufficient quantities of seeds each planting season. Every year, seed is produced in South America in the winter and is delivered just- in-time for spring planting in the United States. Due to the historic drought in 2012, it is estimated that 20 percent of U.S. corn seed will be brought in from South America for planting in 2013.

All seeds are regulated by the Department of Agriculture, USDA. All imported seed must be accompanied by the appropriate forms required by Customs and Border Protection, CBP and USDA, allowing the U.S. Government to electronically track the shipments. In addition to providing information on the seed and the U.S. destination, if seed is still in a research and development phase, it is imported under a strict permitting program administered by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS. As part of its oversight role, USDA also frequently samples and tests incoming seed shipments.

The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA requires a Notice of Arrival,

NOA for all pesticides that enter the United States. Recently and without warning, EPA began requiring the same NOA form used for imported chemical pesticides on seed import shipments. These duplicative and unnecessary paperwork requirements imposed by EPA threaten to disrupt vital seed shipments.

The NOA is designed for imports of commercial pesticides not seeds, and EPA procedures are antiquated. The form cannot be processed electronically. It must be physically presented to and signed by EPA and then returned to the importer who then gives it to CBP so the shipment can enter. Some 2,000 to 3,000 shipments of counter- seasonally-produced commercial seed arrive 24 hours a day, 7 days a week during the critical period from January to April, but EPA only operates during regular business hours. This volume can quickly overwhelm the NOA process. A delay of even a day can result in delayed deliveries, delayed plantings, and reduced yield for farmers.

EPA has never issued any rule or guidance suggesting that seeds containing a pesticide require an NOA to enter the country. However, EPA officials have been enforcing this requirement for commercial seeds containing a pesticide. No seeds should be subjected to these additional paperwork requirements.

Our amendment to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA would clarify the roles of EPA and USDA and ensure that unnecessary paperwork does not disrupt an adequate supply of seeds. This language would clarify that the NOA required for the importation of conventional pesticides is not required for imports of treated seed. All seeds would continue to be regulated by USDA under existing statutes and would remain subject to all applicable USDA and CBP entry requirements. EPA's authority to regulate the pesticides themselves would not be affected.

This bipartisan legislation was adopted by voice vote as an amendment to the House Agriculture Committee farm bill and is supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade Association, National Farmers Union, Agricultural Retailers Association, National Corn Growers Association, and National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.

Senator Carper and I worked with Senator Boxer to make changes to our amendment to address concerns about the scope of the amendment. We are hopeful that when the farm bill is considered in conference, our amendment is adopted.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss a number of ongoing controversies of national importance, including the IRS's unfair treatment of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, the secret gathering of journalists' phone records by the Department of Justice, and the administration's response to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Both the House and the Senate have held hearings with the former and acting IRS Commissioners, as well as the Treasury Department's Inspector General for Tax Administration, who conducted an internal audit and authored the report revealing the pattern of government abuse within the IRS tax exempt division.

While I am pleased that Congress is judiciously exercising its oversight powers, very few questions have been answered. The pattern of inconsistent explanations continues. We still do not know who exactly initiated the practice of wrongfully targeting conservative groups.

Ironically, the Acting IRS Commissioner, Steven Miller, testified under oath that there was absolutely no political motivation behind the practice; however, Mr. Miller could not identify the names of the individuals whose motives he was supposedly vouching for. How is that even possible? Nebraskans know better than to buy that bill of goods.

We still do not know why this abusive policy was implemented in the first place. IRS officials have maintained that the extra scrutiny given to conservative groups was an attempt to deal with an influx of applications. As a number of fact checkers and media outlets have noted, that surge in applications did not happen until well after the targeting began. The reasoning for the practice put forth by the IRS simply does not align with the facts.

We still do not know why the IRS believed it had the right to release confidential data which it had wrongly requested in the first place. They released that to third parties with adversarial interests to those conservative groups in question. The progressive publication ProPublica admitted it obtained from the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential tax forms from nine organizations.

All of the groups whose records were improperly released were conservative. Why did the IRS leak these records? What was their goal? Why did only conservative organizations have their confidential information leaked? Why did the White House senior staff, including the White House Counsel and the White House Chief of Staff, fail to inform the President of this egregious government overreach by the IRS?

Former Special Counsel to President Clinton, Lanny Davis, recently wrote an opinion piece in the Hill:

With all due respect to someone who has impeccable legal

credentials, if she did have such foreknowledge and didn't

inform the President immediately, I respectfully suggest Ms.

Ruemmler is in the wrong job and that she should resign.

Politico recently reported--the story keeps changing:

The White House explanation of what it knew about the IRS

story ahead of the first press reports on the controversy

shifted once again Thursday.

Let me repeat that, ``shifted once again.''

It seems that some folks from the White House cannot get their facts straight. Why? The White House Press Secretary admitted yesterday that officials in the White House discussed how and when the IRS would tell the public the agency had been targeting conservative groups. The eventual public disclosure was made by IRS Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division Director Lois Lerner, who revealed the pattern of government abuse with an intentionally planted question at an otherwise little-noticed Washington, DC, lawyers conference.

It is outrageous that despite numerous congressional inquiries asking the IRS for answers in both public hearings and formal letters, the IRS would first reveal the truth through a charade of a ``planted'' question. Then Lerner went on to earn herself a ``bushel of Pinocchios'' from the Washington Post fact checker for her series of misstatements and ``weasley wording.''

Whatever happened to the President's worthy goals of promoting the most accountable, the most transparent, the most open administration in history? I do not appreciate being misled, and Nebraskans do not either.

Regarding the secret collection of the Department of Justice of over 100 Associated Press journalist phone records, two key questions remain. Why didn't the Department of Justice ask the Associated Press to voluntarily cooperate before issuing those subpoenas as the law requires? And why did the Department of Justice fail to abide by the law

and inform the Associated Press that the records were subpoenaed, denying them the opportunity to appeal that heavy-handed play?

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson put it well:

The Obama administration has no business rummaging through

journalists' phone records, perusing their e-mails and

tracking their movements in an attempt to keep them from

gathering news. This heavy-handed business isn't chilling,

it's just plain cold.

But, once again, the overreach does not stop there. Recent news has surfaced that a Fox News journalist was criminally investigated for doing his job, lawfully soliciting information from a government source. The Post describes the investigation in vivid detail. They used security badge access records to track the reporter's comings and goings from the State Department, according to a newly obtained court affidavit. They traced the timing of his calls with a State Department security adviser suspected of sharing the classified report. They obtained a search warrant for the reporter's personal e-mails.

This assault on the First Amendment is unacceptable and the intimidation of reporters through unnecessary criminal investigations and excessive surveillance raises serious questions about the freedom of the press. The President and the Department of Justice have yet to come forward with credible answers. The American people are still waiting.

Finally, I would like to briefly touch on the tragic attack on our consulate in Benghazi. Much attention has been paid to the internal White House e-mails and changes to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's talking points explaining the source of the attacks.

I believe a key question still remains to be answered: Why for 2 weeks did the administration propagate the tale that it was a YouTube video-inspired attack when officials knew almost immediately it was carried out by affiliates of al-Qaida? That is a pretty simple question.

Why were the American people told an anti-Islam YouTube video prompted the attacks when it was known it was not? No one has answered this very basic question.

Instead of providing answers to these questions, a top White House adviser has impugned the integrity of those seeking the truth by decrying persistent questioning as a ``witch hunt.'' It is time for the President to put politics aside, demand accountability from his staff, and step up and do his job.

Congress is doing its part by conducting serious oversight hearings on both the IRS overreach and the Benghazi attack. Yet critical government witnesses--such as the IRS Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division Director Lois Lerner--refuse to cooperate, insisting on pleading the Fifth Amendment during hearings to set the record straight.

It is up to the President. It is up to the President to transform this culture of arrogance and change the above-the-law attitude that seems to have a grip over his departments and agencies. Ignorance, willful or otherwise, is not going to cut it anymore. We simply cannot afford to have a President on the sidelines. This unraveling saga of government gone wild demonstrates exactly one of two things: either the height of government incompetence or gross abuse of power. Rather than sending surrogates out on the Sunday talk shows to claim ``the law is irrelevant'' with regard to that IRS overreach, I call on the President to work with Congress to build back the people's trust.

This includes taking responsibility for the actions of those working within the executive branch, enforcing the laws, and removing all those responsible for this disturbing pattern of government overreach.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak out against the alarming reports that have recently surfaced by the IRS and the Department of Justice.

As the Federal agency tasked with administering the U.S. Tax Code, the IRS has an extraordinary influence on the lives of all Americans, from all walks of life and all points of view. As citizens we have the absolute right to expect the IRS to be free from political influence, with taxpayers treated fairly and enforcement carried out in an unbiased manner. Unfortunately, in recent days we have learned our expectations are far adrift from reality.

Last week the Internal Revenue Service acknowledged a history of targeting conservative politically active groups during their process of seeking tax-exempt status. This practice first involved flagging groups concerned about government spending and debt. Ironically, such targeting comes at a time when poll after poll indicates the Federal Government's out-of-control spending and our $17 trillion debt are top concerns for all Americans. I can tell my colleagues from my experience it is the top concern for Nebraskans.

Despite these legitimate concerns and the patriotic desire of Americans to effect change in government, the IRS worked to impede these organizations with one of the bluntest instruments of government: regulatory abuse. The IRS demanded inordinate amounts of documents from these groups, including donor lists, which served to unfairly delay the tax-exempt certification of these well-intentioned groups.

This news is alarming on multiple fronts. First and foremost, it is unacceptable that the IRS would blatantly target any of our fellow citizens, let alone groups of Americans whose views are at odds with their own. As the Washington Post noted in today's lead editorial: ``Any unequal application of the law based on ideological viewpoint is unpardonable--toxic to the legitimacy of the government's vast law enforcement authority.'' I couldn't agree more.

These activist groups were simply trying to exercise their First Amendment rights of peaceable assembly and free speech--the cornerstone of our democracy. Yet their reward for expressing concern about the direction our country is going was to be singled out in an attempt to prevent them from fully engaging in the democratic process.

It has been reported that the targeting of these Americans--and muffling of their voices on the pressing issues facing our country-- began in 2010. What has happened since then? The passage of very consequential pieces of legislation, including ObamaCare and the Dodd- Frank Financial Reform Act, multiple debates on how to address our Nation's dire fiscal situation, two national elections, including last fall's Presidential election.

As alarming as the actions of the IRS are, I am even more troubled by the IRS trying to hide these actions. When an IRS official last week finally acknowledged and apologized for the targeting of conservative groups, it was more than 3 years after the practice is said to have begun. It was more than 1 year after the current Acting IRS Commissioner, Steven Miller, is reported to

have become aware of the targeting, but it doesn't stop with Mr. Miller.

As the Washington Post noted: ``Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS's tax-exempt organization office, knew about the targeting in 2011; she seemed to say Friday that she learned about it from news reports last year.''

These were not the malicious actions of a rogue agent or simply another example of government incompetence; instead, this was a clear, methodical abuse of government power to discriminate against whole groups of Americans simply because of their political beliefs.

Despite their awareness of abuse, officials from the IRS failed time after time to disclose this targeting and little effort was made to end the practice. Even as recently as their admissions on Friday, the IRS continued to engage in coverups and half-truths. In fact, IRS officials seem to go out of their way to deny wrongdoing.

In testimony last year before the House of Representatives, then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said there was ``absolutely no targeting.''

After years of neglecting to inform Congress of this practice, the long overdue admission was the result of diligent lawmakers exercising oversight along with a soon-to-be released report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

The time for muted outrage and limp apologies has passed. The American people deserve nothing less than absolute assurance that this practice will not happen again. Those who are responsible must be held accountable and removed from their positions. The policies that enabled this gross abuse of power must be changed immediately.

It is also worth noting the IRS is one of the lead Federal agencies in charge of implementing ObamaCare. It does not appear the IRS is in any condition to implement this highly controversial law, particularly as public trust in this agency continues to plummet.

Just yesterday we learned of another breach of public trust and another potential violation of our First Amendment freedom--the freedom of the press. Press reports indicate the Department of Justice secretly obtained extensive telephone records of reporters and editors for the Associated Press in what the head of the news organization called a ``massive and unprecedented intrusion'' into how news organizations gather the news. According to the Associated Press's legal counsel, the records obtained included those from reporters working out of the House of Representatives press gallery.

While it is unclear at this point how many reporters were targeted and why, the effect of this data gathering is clear: intimidation of the press and suppression of free speech.

This is unacceptable. A free and unfettered press is vital to any democracy. Moreover, the scope of this information gathering is simply beyond the pale--and likely beyond precedent.

The Attorney General and the President owe the American people answers, and they owe them now. These recent abuses of power by both the IRS and the Department of Justice are just the latest episodes of this executive branch's disturbing pattern of overstepping its lawful powers.

We have seen this in the President's unconstitutional recess appointments. We have seen this in the EPA's disclosure of classified information of cattlemen to activist environmental groups. We have seen this in a lack of forthrightness with our government's response to the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

The result of this methodical government overreach has a powerful chilling effect on citizens. There is no place for that in a democracy. There is no place for that in the United States. The American people deserve a government that jealously guards the liberties of its citizens, not a government that tramples on our basic constitutional rights.

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

Madam President, I rise today to speak on S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA. I would like to focus on Senate Amendment No. 801, a bipartisan provision to provide regulatory relief to our country's farmers and ranchers. Senate Amendment No. 801 is based on S. 496, the Farmers Undertake Environmental Stewardship Act, FUELS Act.

The FUELS Act was introduced by Senator Mark Pryor and has 10 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle including Senators John Boozman, Saxby Chambliss, Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Heidi Heitkamp, James Inhofe, Johnny Isakson, Mike Johanns, Mary Landrieu, and myself. It was referred to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, of which I am a member.

I filed the FUELS Act as an amendment to WRDA when it was considered earlier this year by the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. The amendment was not considered at that time.

The House version of the FUELS Act, H.R. 311, was introduced by Congressman Rick Crawford and has 69 cosponsors. In the 112th Congress, the FUELS Act, H.R. 3158, was reported by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and passed the House by voice vote. The House Committee Report for H.R. 3158 (Report 112-643) provides background and discusses the need for legislation:

The EPA mandated Oil Spill Prevention, Control and

Countermeasures program, or SPCC, requires that oil storage

facilities with a capacity of over 1,320 gallons must make

infrastructure improvements to reduce the possibility of oil

spills. The regulations require farmers to construct a

containment facility, like a dike or a basin, which must

retain 110 percent of the fuel in the container. These

mandated infrastructure improvements--along with the

necessary inspection and certification by a specially

licensed Professional Engineer will cost many farmers tens of

thousands of dollars. Sometimes compliance costs reach higher

than $60,000.

The SPCC program dates back to 1973, shortly after the

Clean Water Act was signed into law. In the last decade, it

has been rigorously applied to agriculture lands, and has

been amended, delayed, and extended dozens of times. The

Obama administration updated the rule in 2009 to expand

regulation under the SPCC program--applying it to nearly all

farms, and lifting a 2006 rule that suspended compliance

requirements for small farms with oil storage of 10,000

gallons or less. It applied to crop oil, vegetable oil,

animal fat, and even milk. Further revisions came during

April of 2011 when the EPA decided to exempt milk.

The 2009 rule--minus regulating milk spills was scheduled

to go into effect in November 2011. A few weeks before the

November deadline, EPA issued a statement saying they would

not begin enforcement until May of 2013. While enforcement

has been delayed until 2013, the underlying regulation has

not been fixed.

The FUELS Act requires that EPA revise the SPCC regulations

to be reflective of a producer's spill risk and financial

resources. The exemption level would be adjusted upward from

1,320 gallons of oil storage to an amount that would protect

small farms: 10,000 gallons. The proposal would also place a

greater degree of responsibility on farmers and ranchers to

self-certify compliance if their oil storage facilities

exceed the exemption level. If the amount exceeds 42,000

gallons, a professional engineer must certify the SPCC plans

for a farm. The bill provides another layer of protection by

requiring the producer to be able to demonstrate that he or

she has no history of oil spills, or to fully comply with the

SPCC regulations.

The University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture did a

study that concluded that, for the entire country, H.R. 3158

would save farmers and ranchers up to $3.36 billion.

Agricultural production is an energy-intensive endeavor. Farmers need fuel to power machinery, equipment, and irrigation pumps. Because these operations are in rural areas where regular access to fuel supplies is limited, producers rely upon on-farm fuel storage capacity to provide the supply we need at the times we need it.

My family operates a cattle ranch in the Nebraska Sandhills, so I can tell you firsthand that farmers and ranchers take great pride in the work we do. Our success is the direct result of careful stewardship of our natural resources, which we depend upon for our livelihoods. In agriculture, we know the value of clean water, and we work hard to protect the quality of our streams and aquifers. When it comes to preventing spills from our on-farm fuel storage, farmers already have every incentive to do so--not the least of which is the high cost of diesel and gasoline.

I receive calls and letters every day from Nebraska farmers concerned about the compliance challenges associated with the SPCC rule for on- farm fuel storage, a regulation originally designed for oil refineries. Allow me to share a portion of one such constituent email I recently received on this issue:

We just became aware of this regulation yesterday through

an email from Farm Bureau. Since we have a large quantity of

on-farm storage capacity, we are not able to self-certify and

must hire a professional engineer to create a plan. In order

to find a qualified engineer, I first called the EPA, who

then told me to call the Region 7 office out of Kansas City,

who then told me to call the Nebraska Board of Engineers, who

then told me to call the Nebraska Society of Professional

Engineers, but the number on their website is no longer in

service. When I asked the gentleman from the Nebraska Board

of Engineers how much it would cost, he said anywhere from

$1500-$4800, depending on the complexity and the engineer's

ability to charge more due to high demand due to the

approaching deadline. When I asked the gentleman from the EPA

Region 7 office why we hadn't heard about it before now, he

said the ruling was in place for a long time but they haven't

done a good job of getting the word out.

When I shared these frustrations with Gina McCarthy, the nominee for EPA Administrator, she acknowledged at her nomination hearing on April 11, 2013, that ``the agency has bridges to build with the agriculture community.'' The fact is that good stewardship on farms and ranches and environmental improvements are achieved because of producers' application of new technology, best practices, and conservation measures.

Centralized management and mandates are all too often arbitrary, ineffectual, or even counterproductive, lacking the insight of local stakeholders. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the stakeholder groups on this issue that illustrates this point, July 25, 2012 letter to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This letter from national agriculture groups-- including the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Milk Producers Federation, National Turkey Federation, and USA Rice Federation explains the arbitrary nature of the current regulation: ``EPA's unusual threshold number of 1,320 gallons has no basis in science or in normal tank sizes for agriculture.''

WRDA will require EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, to conduct a study to determine the appropriate exemption level ``to not more than 6,000 gallons and not less than 2,500 gallons, based on a significant risk of discharge to water.'' The intent of this provision is to ensure that EPA is not unnecessarily regulating on-farm fuel storage at capacities that do not pose a significant risk to harming water quality. If there is not a significant risk, then regulation is not justified. Compliance costs should not be imposed where there is not a significant risk.

A March 2005 USDA report, Fuel/Oil Storage for Farmers and Cooperatives, states, ``The SPCC rule will have a substantial cost of compliance for the nation's farmers. A total compliance cost of almost $4.5 billion is projected. There is very little evidence of fuel/oil spill by farms.'' The report goes on to state that ``the 1,320 gallons aggregated storage trigger is not supported by the survey data. Compliance at this level not only ignores the physical layouts of farm fuel storage but it also imposes a broad and extreme impact on the majority of farms. Nearly 70 percent of all farms would have to comply, at an average aggregated tank cost of $9,215 and a total compliance cost of $4.5 billion.''

I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record other letters of support for the FUELS Act from agricultural stakeholders, including letters from the American Farm Bureau Federation, USA Rice, National Corn Growers Association, American Soybean Association, National Cotton Council, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, NCFC.

This quote from the NCFC letter illustrates the points I have made, further explains the need for the legislation, and emphasizes the importance of the EPA-USDA study in ensuring that we are not unnecessarily regulating capacity levels at which no significant risk of oil spills has been demonstrated.

Without question the members of the agricultural sector who

grow the nation's food and rely on surface and well water to

meet their families' and agricultural operations' needs are

highly motivated to ensure that their environmental practices

are sound. These producers work daily to ensure a safe

environment for their children and the communities in which

they live. As such, they can and do take very seriously their

responsibility, consistent with the intent and spirit of the

SPCC provisions, to properly manage the oil resources used on

their operations.

Row crop farms, ranches, livestock operations, farmer

cooperatives and other agribusinesses pose low risks for

spills and are often seasonal in nature. In fact, data on oil

spill on farms, cooperatives, and other agribusinesses is

almost nonexistent. The Agency has failed to provide data or

even anecdotal evidence of agricultural spills to justify

such a resource-intensive rulemaking for America's farmers

and ranchers. The risk of such spills from agriculture is

extremely low and there is little to no evidence that

providing greater flexibility through S. 496 will harm the

environment.

The Senate's approval of WRDA will be a huge victory for farmers throughout Nebraska and across America, who should not face unnecessary regulations. The bipartisan provision regarding on-farm fuel storage raises the exemption levels for fuel storage capacity to better reflect the spill risk and financial resources of farms. I appreciate my colleagues' support and cooperation on this issue.

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

Mr. President, a recent Washington Post headline has grabbed national attention. It reads: U.S. Government spends $890,000 on nothing.

It almost sounds like a bad joke, but this is no laughing matter. The Post 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.

The American people are no strangers to reports of excessive government waste, from robotic squirrel research to Moroccan pottery classes. This latest example, however, comes at a particularly frustrating moment, as thousands of Americans are stuck waiting for hours in airport terminals with delayed fights--the result of the Federal Aviation Administration's decision to furlough thousands of air traffic controllers due to sequestration. The Post astutely noted:

If you are a federal worker on furlough this week--or an

airline passenger delayed by federal furloughs--you might

want to save your blood pressure and go read another story.

Federal law requires the government to reduce overall spending by 5 percent in each agency, totaling $85 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year. While the $890,000 currently spent on unused bank accounts may seem like a drop in the bucket, it nonetheless proves there is plenty of fat to trim in Federal spending. We can do that, and we can do it without directly impacting essential government services and jobs.

The same holds true with the FAA. Similar to many Nebraskans, I remain concerned about the Federal Government's failure to effectively target these required but necessary budget cuts. Of particular concern is the FAA's complete mismanagement of the cost reductions which has resulted in unnecessary travel delays all across this Nation. Since 1996, the FAA's operations budget has grown by an astounding 109 percent, from $4.6 billion to $9.7 billion. A mere 5-percent budget cut would simply return the FAA to the 2010 funding levels.

Despite 2 years to prepare for these budget reductions, the FAA chose to provide Congress and the airline industry with less than 1 week's notice regarding its plans to furlough its workforce, showing complete disregard for the traveling public.

The FAA has insisted on targeting air traffic controllers, rather than solely focusing on lower priority personnel to ensure morale. I wonder if anyone has checked in with the folks waiting in airport terminals--and waiting in those terminals for hours--to determine their current morale. The FAA has 47,000 employees, of which 15,500 are air traffic controllers. While I appreciate the hard work of many Federal employees, air traffic controllers should be the last ones on the FAA's budgetary chopping block.

Rather than selectively ratcheting up the pain of Federal budget cuts on American citizens with these long delays, the FAA should, instead, focus on cutting its $500 million consultant slush fund or the $325 million spent on supplies and travel.

For months, the administration has argued it lacks the flexibility to target the required budget cuts in a smart, responsible manner--in a smart, responsible manner--that mitigates the impact on the public. To that end, I have cosponsored several legislative efforts to provide this administration with the tools to ensure that essential Federal employees continue to provide these vital services, such as our control tower operations.

Most recently I cosponsored the Essential Services Act, which would simply require each Federal agency head to identify and exempt essential employees from any furlough policies by using the same standards that were created by multiple administrations during previous government shutdowns.

Unfortunately, the President and my Democratic colleagues continue to oppose any of these measures to both achieve needed savings without tax hikes and preserve our important government functions.

Notably, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta recently testified at a Senate hearing that he does, in fact, have discretion to prioritize the spending cuts. If that is true, then it appears the FAA is more interested in scoring political points rather than cutting its $2.7 billion in nonpersonnel operation costs.

I am very disappointed in Administrator Huerta's lack of forthrightness with this Congress. When asked at the same hearing about the FAA's possible furlough strategy, Mr. Huerta provided only general statements. Hours later, FAA officials provided detailed furlough plans to airlines--a disturbing move to hide the ball from lawmakers, who were left without the opportunity to mitigate the impact of these extensive furloughs.

I stand here ready to work with the President and any of my colleagues who are committed to making these budget cuts in a smart, effective, and efficient manner, a manner that preserves essential government services.

I thank the chair. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of a resolution designating September 26, 2013, as ``National Pediatric Brain Cancer Awareness Day.''

Childhood is a time for growing--growing bodies, growing minds, and growing hearts. It is a time for bike rides that end in skinned knees and sleepovers in backyard forts. It is a time for wondrous stories of Neverland and family board games. It is a time to learn the difference between right and wrong and the difficult discipline of homework. It is a time--a very brief time--given to us by God to live without fear or physical pain or without burdens and responsibilities.

For too many children, though, childhood is very different. Too many children in this country are forced to grow up far too quickly. The stark realities of hunger and poverty mature them and some have no choice but to learn the hard lessons of courage from the cruel, unyielding teacher of sickness.

Despite this hasty transition from storybooks to the harsh realities of life, these children remain beacons of hope. They inspire us. They challenge us to overcome our own trials which seem trivial in comparison to the heavy burdens they shoulder. They prompt us all to believe in the power of miracles because they have no other choice.

One such child is a friend of mine. He is a personal hero. His name is Jack Hoffman. Jack Hoffman is a 7-year-old boy. He was born and raised in Atkinson, NE.

Jack's early years passed like those of many children his age who live in Nebraska communities. He learned to fish and hunt. He went for long bike rides. He played sports. He started school. He made friends with many of his classmates. I am willing to bet little Jack has also had a fight or two with his siblings.

But childhood for Jack took a quick and unexpected turn on April 22, 2011--almost exactly 2 years ago--when Jack suffered a life-threatening seizure. Upon examining him, doctors had shocking news: Jack had brain cancer.

Jack immediately underwent surgery to remove this cancerous mass on his brain, but the surgery did not bring

about the results they hoped for. As doctors desperately sought an answer, Jack's young body continued to be riddled with seizures. Within 5 months, he endured a second brain surgery which removed 95 percent of the remaining tumor. But despite this success, in April 2012 the MRI showed that Jack's cancer had returned and doctors determined it was inoperable. So Jack quickly began 60 weeks of chemotherapy, employing an outdated regimen used by doctors for over 25 years.

Unfortunately, diminished research funding for pediatric brain cancer has stunted medical advancements, so treatment options remain limited. But Jack and his parents didn't despair. They remain hopeful and determined to discover God's will in their hardships.

In a recent Omaha World-Herald story, Jack's father Andy is quoted as saying:

I don't know why God chose Jack to have this. But I do know

that we can make something good out of it, and that's promote

the improvement of treatments of this disease.

So the Hoffmans set out, they set out on a mission to raise awareness for pediatric brain cancer.

This is a rare but devastating disease that poses unique health and developmental problems for the 3,000 child patients who are diagnosed each year. Jack and other children suffering from brain cancer endure seizures, difficulty speaking, and trouble with their balance. The list, unfortunately, goes on. They spend long periods of time away from their families, friends, and classmates. They miss school, they miss football games, and they miss out on childhood.

The Hoffmans' fundraising efforts through the Team Jack campaign have yielded over $300,000, and it is all for pediatric brain cancer research.

Although there are countless worthy charities across our country, my husband Bruce and I feel a special connection with Team Jack, and we have worked very closely with the Hoffman family to increase awareness of pediatric brain cancer.

While Jack and his family have been friends of mine for many years, he was first introduced to most Americans when he became an overnight football star--complete with his own trading card--and he did this at the Huskers spring football game on April 6, 2013. Jack suited up with football pads and a No. 22 jersey, and little Jack ran 69 yards. He scored a touchdown in front of 60,000 screaming fans in our Memorial Stadium in Lincoln, NE.

In a single dash across the gridiron, little Jack Hoffman touched the hearts of millions of Americans, and that includes 7.6 million YouTube viewers, and he increased awareness of pediatric brain cancer.

It didn't take a touchdown, though, to make Jack a hero. He smiles through the pain. His courage and his resilience represent the very best of the human spirit and the very best of our Nation.

I admire the Hoffmans for their unwavering commitment to transform this very personal trial into a force for good. I am deeply grateful for all they have done to find a cure.

Today the Senate commends the Hoffmans, Team Jack, and all those Americans who work tirelessly to battle and bring attention to pediatric brain cancer. The resolution Senator Klobuchar and I are submitting recognizes the unique struggles of pediatric brain cancer for their patients and their families. It commends scientists, researchers, and health care providers working to modernize and improve the diagnosis and treatment options; and, importantly, it designates September 26, 2013, as ``National Pediatric Brain Cancer Awareness Day'' to encourage efforts toward the early diagnosis and treatment and ultimate cure for this disease.

So at this time I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 116, submitted earlier today.

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

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask for such time as I may consume.

I rise today on Tax Day, the deadline for Americans to file Federal tax returns on their hard-earned income for the 2012 tax year. Benjamin Franklin famously said the only sure things in life are death and taxes. Today we Americans live up to that second hard truth, the day when the taxman comes.

For those of us in Congress, Tax Day serves as an important reminder of just who is funding all of the government's spending: it is the American taxpayer. Even as families across America have made tough decisions and tightened their household budgets, the Federal Government has gone on a spending spree. The government has posted four straight trillion-dollar deficits and is growing the national debt, which is approaching $17 trillion.

In recent years the average annual deficit has skyrocketed to 8.7 percent of our gross domestic product. These deficits should be all the evidence we need in order we get our fiscal house in order.

I believe, and Nebraskans believe, to generate economic growth we must first address our Nation's addiction to spending. We need to fix our broken tax system, and what better time than Tax Day to highlight this need?

Tax Day is a day to renew our efforts to simplify the tax system and ease the burden on hard-working Americans. The act of actually filing taxes is never pleasant, but it also allows Americans the chance to assess just how much of their income is going toward subsidizing an ever-growing bureaucracy.

Rather than make it easy for citizens to comply with the income tax requirements, the Federal Government has held onto an arcane, convoluted tax system. Many citizens, particularly small business owners, are forced to hire costly accountants or buy tax software just to sift through the 3,951,104 words of the Tax Code which, along with other rules and regulations, fills 73,608 pages of text, all in order to figure out just how much one owes.

Nebraskans shouldn't need to waste their time or pay for expensive financial advisers just to fork over more money to Uncle Sam. Americans collectively spend more than 6 billion hours preparing their tax returns. Imagine what more could be done if Americans could focus less time and resources on tax compliance.

According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, 90 percent of small businesses have given up attempting to comply with the Tax Code. Instead, they pay a professional tax preparation service.

Through tax reform to make the Tax Code simpler and fairer, these small businesses could redirect scant resources currently used for tax compliance to focus more on growth and creating jobs.

I am encouraged, however, by the recent efforts toward much needed comprehensive tax reform to simplify our Tax Code. Just last week the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus, wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal with House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp highlighting their progress to date in pressing toward bipartisan tax reform.

President Obama has called for revenue-neutral corporate tax reform in his fiscal year 2014 budget. Unfortunately, the President's proposal is contingent on a $1.1 trillion tax increase above and beyond the $1.7 trillion in tax increases the President has already sought and won.

Such a tax hike sends the unmistakable message to every American taxpayer that the government knows how to spend their money better than they do. I believe American families know how best to spend their money, particularly during ongoing times of economic hardship when everyone is called upon to make tough decisions and to make those tough decisions about their budgets and about spending.

Revenue-neutral, progrowth tax reform should not only be geared toward the corporate side of our Tax Code, we should pursue revenue- neutral tax reforms on the individual side as well which would benefit American families as well as small businesses that pay those taxes at the individual level.

Small businesses generate two out of every three new jobs. Ninety- five percent of businesses, which employ nearly 70 million Americans, are organized in such a way that earnings are passed through the enterprise and therefore subject to taxation at the individual level. Tax day provides us with a needed reminder of how broken our Tax Code is. We can and should use it as the impetus to pursue progrowth tax reform. My goal for tax reform is simple--a fairer tax code that ensures that Nebraskans and our neighbors from across the country can keep more of the money they work hard to earn while providing for the core duties and responsibilities of our government.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to speak on the budget proposal released at long last yesterday by President Obama. Tardy though this budget may be, and despite our differences in opinion, I welcome the President's ideas to begin addressing our Nation's fiscal crisis and runaway spending. Unfortunately, though, I am disappointed that this budget amounts to more taxes, more spending, and more debt. The President's budget calls for $1.1 trillion more in taxes, on top of the $660 billion in tax hikes the President already demanded and won as part of the fiscal cliff deal enacted at the beginning of the year, before I arrived in Washington. That is a grand total of $1.8 trillion in tax hikes--before we add in another trillion dollar tax from ObamaCare. Yet, despite all of this new so-called ``revenue,'' the President's budget would never balance. No amount of taxes will ever begin to address our Nation's $17 trillion debt.

But taxes aren't the only problem with the President's budget. There is also a trillion dollars in new spending. We tried that in 2009. It didn't work then and it won't work now. To spend more, we have to borrow more. The President's budget would add $8.2 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years.

Of particular concern to farmers, ranchers, and small businesses in Nebraska is a proposed hike in the death tax. Under the fiscal cliff deal reached at the beginning of this year, the death tax was set at 40 percent, with an exemption per estate of $5 million, indexed for inflation. This is already an increase from 2011 and 2012, when the death tax rate was 35 percent. The President's budget, however, would hike the rate further, to 45 percent, while also diminishing the exemption per estate to $3.5 million.

This disregards the bipartisan will of Congress. The Senate has repeatedly supported a lower death tax rate and higher exemption. Just 3 weeks ago, 80 senators--myself included--supported an amendment seeking to repeal, or at least reduce, the death tax. Instead, the President's death tax proposal would result in a $72 billion tax hike. This would be particularly harmful to family farmers and ranchers in my State of Nebraska and across our Nation. On average, more than 80 percent of the value of a family-owned farm or ranch is derived from land, buildings, and equipment. Following the death of a loved one, families often must sell part or even all of their land and property to pay the death tax bill. Yet these are illiquid assets which rarely receive their assessed value on the open market, leaving families to take cents on the dollar in order for them to keep that farm or ranch.

Each day, farmers and ranchers across Nebraska and the United States rise well before dawn only to retire well after dark. After building a successful enterprise, family farmers and ranchers should be able to pass along the fruits of their labor to their children. Instead, the President's budget proposal would reward this lifetime of hard work with a higher tax bill.

I will proudly cosponsor legislation to be introduced soon by Senator John Thune to permanently repeal the death tax. Absent a full repeal, I will continue fighting to ensure that family farmers, ranchers, and other small businesses escape as much of the brunt of the death tax as possible. This is not to say that I disagree with every aspect of the President's budget. Medicare and Social Security are both on the path to insolvency. I appreciate that the President sees this unsustainable path and has offered concrete proposals to reform these programs.

Without action, seniors and other beneficiaries will see steep cuts in benefits from Medicare by 2024 and Social Security by 2033. While these cuts will not come overnight, neither will the solutions we need to keep the promises we have made to our seniors and those nearing retirement.

This is the first step in what will be--and quite frankly needs to be--a prolonged, well-reasoned debate. I look forward to working with the President in good faith to reform and save these critical programs. I also appreciate the President's desire for revenue-neutral corporate tax reform. The devil, of course, is in the details. I have great reservations that the President's proposal would basically redistribute tax preferences instead of doing more to bring down what is the highest corporate income tax rate in the world. And I believe that we should not merely do this on the corporate side but reform our entire tax code on a revenue-neutral basis in order to unleash the economic growth of our Nation.

There are areas where we can work together--and I am eager to do so. But higher taxes, higher spending, and higher debt are not the answer to the fiscal challenges our Nation faces.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to deliver my maiden speech as a U.S. Senator from Nebraska.

I am humbled by the trust placed in me by Nebraskans and inspired by their confidence to confront the great challenges before us.

Our Nation's story began when bands of patriots fought a revolution to secure independence from an out-of-touch King residing an ocean away. The Framers believed a representative government closer to the people would be more responsive and better able to provide opportunity for individuals.

From the start, leaders of good will and strong views disagreed over economic theories, the size of government, and foreign policy. Importantly, though, these divergent beliefs have been a source of national strength--not weakness--and through vigorous debate about the proper size and role of government, we have built a powerful nation.

But as recent partisan disagreements prove, democracy is messy, and the best way forward is not always clear. While I do not aim to resolve this contest of ideas with a single speech, I do wish to outline a course I intend to chart during my time in the Senate.

To understand my views, one must first understand Nebraska. Nebraska's motto is ``The Good Life''--a fitting maxim for a State with the second lowest unemployment rate in the country.

Make no mistake, Nebraska's economic success and sound fiscal footing is no accident. Similar to 45 other States, Nebraska is legally required to balance its budget. But unique to Nebraska is a constitutional prohibition against incurring State debt greater than $100,000. That is a radical concept for lawmakers here in Washington.

We can imagine Nebraskans' dismay when they take stock of our Nation's $16 trillion debt and annual trillion-dollar deficits. Needless to say, Nebraskans know better.

Nebraska is known for its pioneer history and sturdy spirit, its prime grazing grasses and plentiful crop production, its abundant natural resources, growing metropolitan areas, and vibrant small towns. But the State's greatest treasure is its people.

Nebraskans are hard working. We get up early to work farms and ranches and return home late after attending local school board meetings. I make this claim as a family rancher and a former school board member myself.

Nebraskans run thriving small businesses on Rockwellian Main Streets and they sweat on factory floors. We lead multinational corporations and we are builders. We build homes, we build roads and infrastructure.

Nebraskans value community. We join the PTA, we coach Little League teams after long workdays, and we volunteer for our churches and our synagogues. We work hard, but we are people with perspective. Nebraskans are tough. We are tested by droughts, by fires and floods, and a changing global economy. We have even endured nine-win football seasons. We are strong-willed people--you have to be to survive a winter on the Great Plains--and we adapt, we innovate, and we grow.

Nebraska is home to the only unicameral legislature in the Nation. As a former two-term State senator, I was privileged to serve in the Unicameral for 8 years. Notably, State senators in Nebraska are nonpartisan. No matter party or ideological affiliation, any senator can serve in leadership. The only requirements are knowledge and ability.

Serving in the Nebraska legislature taught me the importance of building relationships and seizing opportunities so we can work across party lines. That is a critical skill in order to avoid gridlock.

Similar to many Nebraskans, I am deeply concerned about the future of our Nation. That is why I entered public service.

No single issue is more important to our future than the Federal Government's addiction to spending. There are two main problems with government spending: First, runaway spending has failed to generate economic growth. Since 2009, the Federal Government has spent roughly $15 trillion. This spending spree includes $830 million in stimulus spending that was sold as ``help for the private sector.''

Instead, this so-called investment focused on growing the government.

The result of this increased government spending has been a largely jobless economic recovery, a record number of Americans stuck in poverty and spiraling national debt. Rather than empowering individuals to improve their lives, these bad economic policies have held Americans back.

To change course toward renewed prosperity, I support a limited government focused on fulfilling its core duties and responsibilities, a limited Federal Government performing its first constitutional charge: providing for the common defense.

To protect the Nation we must maintain a highly trained, well- equipped fighting force. Equally important, a limited government keeps its promises to veterans who have risked life and limb in defense of freedom. A limited Federal Government has a responsibility to fund critical needs such as a 21st-century infrastructure. To the surprise of many in Washington, this can be done without raising taxes. Existing sources of revenue are sufficient for government to meet its fundamental responsibilities.

As a member of the Nebraska Legislature, I introduced legislation directing a portion of Nebraska's existing sales tax to fund new road construction. I worked with my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to utilize only existing revenue. With the right mix of hard work and good will the legislature passed this bill. The State will now be able to fulfill that

fundamental core duty, that fundamental responsibility of government, and improve Nebraska's communities without raising taxes. We can make similar progress in Washington. Again, it is a matter of setting priorities.

The second problem with government spending is that it robs hard- working taxpayers of their personal income just to grow bigger government. Big government crowds out the private sector and it stifles innovation. This means more Solyndra-style investment rather than policies that provide for the kind of risk takers who launch a world- changing business from their garage.

Big government requires big funding. Rather than forcing Americans to forfeit more of their hard-earned tax dollars to Uncle Sam, I support policies that lower taxes, that bolster the private sector. Only then will the United States finally emerge from this long economic recession.

Nebraskans understand that the bigger the government, the smaller the individual. The smaller the individual, the less attention is paid to freedom and personal responsibility. Limited government, on the other hand, remains grounded closer to home. Government that is closer to home is better suited for meeting individual needs, creating more opportunity, more efficiency, and more growth.

The expansion of government and the subsequent erosion of freedom are not always obvious at first. Freedom can be chipped away at slowly but steadily through new legal requirements, such as ``employer mandates'' in the health care law or misguided attempts to regulate farm dust or the size of our soft drinks. Eventually individuals are constrained by lack of choice, society drifts without progress or creativity, and the economy stagnates.

As President Reagan cautioned:

The nature of freedom is that it is fragile. It must be

protected, watched over, sometimes fought over.

Reagan was right. Freedoms must be carefully guarded. We must remain vigilant against any attempt, large or small, to diminish it. Yet despite this fragility, our God-given freedom is vast, limited only by the boundaries we impose on it. Nebraskans understand vastness. We know what it is like to look up at the night sky and see stars that are undiminished by city lights. We appreciate the land which appears to roll without end. Yet it remains in need of care. Vastness gives us perspective. Some perspective would go a long way in Washington.

Beyond the beltway's chattering class, there exists a Nation of quiet heroes: parents grateful for the dignity of hard work; entrepreneurs willing to take great risks to build businesses; farmers and ranchers dutifully tending the land and livestock; soldiers proudly wearing our Nation's uniform; veterans bearing scars, both physical and invisible, reminding us of freedom's price; and children whose simple joy dispels our cynicism, which can come with everyday struggles.

While our Nation faces many challenges at home and around the world, only petty politics holds us back from overcoming them. We are a great and generous nation. We have faced seemingly insurmountable obstacles before and each generation has conquered them with that uniquely American combination of grit and grace. I believe, and Nebraskans believe, our Nation's future is bright.

The United States remains the hope of the world, but this moment, this uncertain moment, requires real courage from our leaders. That is not to say the debate over the role of government or taxes or spending will be resolved by this Congress, but we can do better.

This is what we were sent here to do. Americans are not mediocre. They are exceptional and deserve exceptional leaders.

Today the whole world mourns the loss of such a leader, an uncommon woman born into common circumstances, the daughter of a grocer, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. She was a woman who stood tall for principle. Yet she had the wisdom to seize opportunities and work with allies and foes alike to achieve great things for the British people. Along with her partner and friend Ronald Reagan, she helped to lead the world away from the long shadow of the Iron Curtain to a freer, more prosperous time. I admired her political courage to make those difficult decisions, and I hope to do the same here in Washington.

I look forward to standing tall for Nebraska values and working with my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, on commonsense solutions to these ongoing challenges. I am proud to represent the citizens of Nebraska here in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 630, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I rise today to offer a side-by-side amendment to Senator Shaheen's amendment No. 438.

My amendment defends the rights of employers opposed to subsidizing certain health care services because of conscience objections or religious beliefs.

We have all heard from employers, hospitals, and physicians who have told us about their concerns about inadequate exemptions for those with religious objections to certain types of health care services. In my home State, the Nebraska Medical Association passed a resolution in 2012 calling for increased protection of conscience rights for licensed physicians. I am pleased that this amendment does just that.

The amendment does not add a dime to the deficit, it protects the quality of women's health care, and it defends the conscience rights and religious principles of employers and physicians. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this important amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.