Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I recognize Cara Groseth, an intern in my Rapid City, SD office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.

Cara is a graduate of Stevens High School in Rapid City, SD. Currently she is attending the South Dakota State University, where she is double majoring in economics and apparel merchandise. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Cara for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, I think we all agree our immigration system is broken and it needs to be fixed. Unfortunately, every time Congress has tried to fix our immigration system, promises of a more secure border are never upheld. The bill we have in front of us today is following the same path as past immigration bills.

Under this bill it is certain that 12 million people in this country who are here illegally will receive legal status soon after the bill is enacted. However, the border security provisions of this bill are again nothing more than promises which, again, may never be upheld.

When I talk to the people I represent in the State of South Dakota, one of the questions I get over and over is, When is our Federal Government going to keep its promises when it comes to the issue of border security?

The second question is, Why do we need more laws when we are not enforcing the laws we currently have on the books?

It is time that we follow through on promises of a more secure border.

Actually, you have to go back to 1996, which is the first time Congress spoke on this issue. At that time Congress stipulated that we needed to have a double- and even triple-layered fence system on the border.

Well, you roll time forward to 2006--10 years later--with the Secure Fence Act. Congress again passed a law requiring a double-layered fence, this time indicating very specific locations, totaling around 850 miles--even above the current 700-mile requirement. Eighty Senators voted for that bill. Let me repeat that. Eighty Senators, Republicans and Democrats, in a bipartisan way voted in 2006, under the Secure Fence Act, for 850 miles of double-layered fence.

Well, you go again forward to 2008. As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress specified this time that not less than 700 miles of fencing would be required. To date, of course, of this requirement, only about 40 miles of the double-layered fencing has been completed.

During debate on the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act in 2010, an amendment was offered to require the completion of at least 700 miles of reinforced fencing along the southwest border, and this time with a specific timeline, a specific date in mind: December 31, 2010. That amendment was agreed to on the Senate floor. There were 54 votes in favor of it, including 21 Democrats, 13 of whom are still here today. But the fence has still not been completed.

The amendment I have offered, amendment No. 1197, simply requires that we implement current law, completing 350 miles of double-layered fencing prior to RPI status being granted. The completion of this section of the fence would be a tangible, visible demonstration that we are serious about this issue of border security. After RPI status is granted, the remaining 350 miles required by current law would have to be constructed during the 10-year period before registered provisional immigrants can apply for green cards. So 350 miles before RPI status; 350 miles after. I think it is a reasonable way of approaching this issue.

People have gotten up and said: Well, this fence is old school. It is not the only answer. It requires a combination of technology and manpower and surveillance, but there is an important place for infrastructure to play in this. A double-layered fence, which was called for by Congress first in 1996, again in 2006, again in 2008--for which there was broad bipartisan support here in the Senate--should be something on which we follow through.

One of the other issues that has been raised is, well, there is not money to do this. There is money appropriated in this bill. Mr. President, $6.5 billion is appropriated, $1.5 billion of which is dedicated to infrastructure. If you look at what it would cost to build a double-layered fence, the estimates are about $3.2 million per mile. So the 350 miles we call for before RPI status is granted

would run in the range of $1 billion--sufficient within the money already allocated in the bill.

But my point, very simply, is this: We have made promises and commitments to the American people over and over and over again in a bipartisan way here in the Senate which have not been followed through on.

Now, the Senator from Alabama, who offered an amendment very similar to this at the Judiciary Committee markup, is here on the floor and has been a leader in terms of trying to secure our borders--an issue that I think most Americans, before we deal with any other aspect or element of the immigration debate, believe ought to be addressed.

I would simply ask the Senator, if I might through the Chair, does he think building 40 miles out of a 700-mile requirement is keeping the promise we made to build a border fence that is adequate to deter illegal crossings? Secondly, doesn't infrastructure, such as a double- layered fence, enhance the effectiveness of border control agents and surveillance technologies along the border--recognizing again that it is not the only answer; it is combined with, complemented by other forms of border security? But it is important, in my view, that we have a visible, tangible way in which we make it very clear that this is a deterrent to people coming to this country illegally.

We want people to come here legally. We are a welcoming nation. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are a nation of laws, and we have to enforce the laws. We have not been doing that, and we have not been keeping the promises we made to the American people when it comes to border security and more specifically when it comes to the building of the fence.

So I would ask my colleague from Alabama, through the Chair, about his views on this and whether we have followed through on a level that is anywhere consistent with what we promised to the American people. Secondly, doesn't the Senator think this infrastructure component is an important element when it comes to the border security part of this debate on immigration reform?

I say to my colleague from Alabama--and, again, I thank him for his leadership on this issue, both past and present--what we are talking about here is something that is a part of the solution. This is not the totality. This is not the entirety.

People come down here and say: Well, you cannot just build a fence. People will tunnel under it. They will climb over it.

Of course they will. But coupled with additional Border Patrol agents, coupled with surveillance, coupled with modern technologies, it is a composite solution, if you will, but it still very clearly is a deterrent. It is a visible, tangible message and deterrent that we want people to come to this country legally, we want to discourage illegal immigration. I think the fence is part of the infrastructure component of that border security solution, and it is something we have all made commitments on in the past.

I think it is very hard to ask people to vote for an immigration reform bill that includes the legalization component to it if we are not going to follow through on the promises we have made because the American people have heard this before. Promises, promises is something they have heard plenty of in the past when it comes to this issue. We have yet to follow through on this with the exception of the 36 miles that I mentioned that have been built. But commitments were made in 1996, requirements to do this in 2006. As the Senator said, in 2008 the money was added. That was a 76-to-17 vote here in the Senate. Seventy- six Senators from both parties voted to fund this in 2008. In 2006, 80 Senators, including now-President Obama, who at that time was a Senator, now-Vice President Biden, who at that time was a Senator, and at that time Senator Hillary Clinton all voted for the Secure Fence Act in 2006.

So, again, I am not suggesting for a minute that it is the only solution, the cure-all, the panacea that is going to address this issue, but I think it is something that is very real, very tangible, very visible. It is something we have made a commitment on to the American people, and I think it is something on which we ought to follow through. It certainly ought to be a requirement--a condition, if you will--in this legislation before some of these other elements come to pass because if it is not, it will never get done, as we have already seen going back to 1996.

So I hope that on amendment No. 1197, when it is voted on this afternoon, we will have the same strong bipartisan support we have had in the past on this issue. I hope, again, as the Senator from Alabama and I have discussed, we will follow through on a commitment we made to the American people and do something really meaningful on the issue of border security.

With that, I say to my colleague from Alabama that, again, I appreciate his strong voice on this issue, and I hope he and I will be joined by many others today.

Mr. President, I will say in closing, again, this is not-- the border is 2,000 miles long. This requires 700 miles. So it would be put in those areas where, as the Senator from Alabama noted, it is most needed.

With that, I yield the floor and ask, when the time comes, for support on amendment No. 1197.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for trying to work with us in a fashion that will allow us to get to some votes on amendments. We have several amendments pending, one of which is the amendment I have offered, amendment No. 1197. I spoke to this subject a little bit the other evening as we commenced debate on the immigration bill. I would like to, if I might, elaborate a little bit further on why I believe this amendment is important and why I think it strengthens and improves the underlying bill.

I said the other evening that I am very convinced--I think we all are--that we need an immigration system that works. The immigration system we have today is broken, and it must be fixed. Unfortunately, each time Congress has tried to fix our immigration system, promises of a more secure border have never held. The bill in front of us is well- intended, but it is following the same path as past immigration bills.

Under this bill, it is certain that 12 million undocumented workers will receive legal status soon after the bill is enacted. However, the border security provisions of this bill are nothing more than promises which, again, may never be upheld. I have said this before. When I talk to constituents back in my State of South Dakota, there are couple of questions they ask. The first question is, When will our Federal Government keep its promises on border security? They also ask a second question; that is, Why do we need more laws when we are not enforcing the laws that are currently on the books?

It is time that we follow through on promises of a more secure border. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 required 700 miles of reinforced, double-layered fencing along the southern border. That goal was reaffirmed when Congress passed the Secure Fence Act back in 2006. To date, less than 40 miles--36, to be exact--out of the 700 miles of fencing required by law has been completed.

My amendment No. 1197 simply requires that when we implement current law prior to legalization--that is an indication that we are serious about border security--as specified by this amendment, 350 miles of the fencing would be required prior to RPI status being granted. The completion of this section of the fence would be a tangible demonstration that we are serious about border security. After RPI status

is granted, the remaining 350 miles required by current law would have to be constructed during the 10-year period before registered provisional immigrants can apply for green cards.

There are still many problems with this bill that need to be addressed. I think that is what the amendment process is all about. But I say to my colleagues here in the Senate that if we want to show we are serious about border security and not just talking about it but actually making real changes to make our border more secure, then this amendment is one way to show we are serious.

There has been a lot of discussion about the various costs associated with building a fence. If we look at the different estimates about border fence costs, there are quotes from private contractors suggesting that the cost of constructing a double-layered fence is about $3.2 million per mile. Putting that in terms of a 700-mile fence, we are looking at about $2.2 billion. Remember, it would cost a lot less than that if we reach the 350-mile mark, which is what my amendment calls for, prior to RPI status. But it is a reasonable cost.

There are dollars allocated in the legislation that are designed to strengthen border security. I suggest to my colleagues that one of the best, simplest, plainest, most straightforward ways of doing that is to build the fence--the fence that is required by law, that was required in the 1996 act and in the 2006 act and to date only 40 miles of which has been built.

This makes a lot of sense. I suggest that as we talk about the various other elements of the immigration debate and the legislation in front of us, we start with this. If we start with this, I think we can convince the American people we are serious.

I think it is difficult for Americans to trust Congress, trust the government to do the right thing on the border when past promises have not been fulfilled. If we go back to the 1986 immigration reform legislation, there were promises made about border security that were never kept, and we allowed people to come in at that time. Since that time, here we are many years later with the same set of circumstances in front of us today, trying to figure out how to deal with the undocumented workers who are currently here but absent anything having happened that would ensure to the American people that the border security requirements are being met.

I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to express our commitment to the American people that before RPI status is granted, we are serious about securing our border, ensuring that the commitments made about building a fence there are fulfilled--again, 350 miles of which would be constructed prior to RPI status, and the other 350 miles of that 700-mile fence would happen subsequent to a green card being issued and moving into that next status that is allowed for in this legislation.

This is not something that is complicated. I think if you are an American citizen in this country, you ask a couple of very straightforward questions. One is, why do we have to pass new laws if we are not going to enforce the laws already on the books? The 700 miles of border fence is on the books--in 1986, when it was first called for, and then in 2006, subsequent to that, it was again stipulated that a fencing requirement be completed on the southern border.

Interestingly enough, I would add that at the time when that vote was held in 2006, then-Senators Obama, Biden, and Clinton supported that bill, along with a lot of the current Members, authors of the legislation that is before us today.

It makes perfect sense to the American people. I think it is a necessary and essential, actually, requirement to be met not only for us to move on to the other elements of the immigration debate but, more important, to secure the American border.

I ask that amendment No. 1197 be made pending.

Mr. President, if I might, I will make a response to the Senator from Louisiana. I understand that there is not going to be a barrier that will be 100 percent effective, but the type of double- layered fencing mandated by the law would be a significant physical deterrent, demonstrating that we are serious. It would prevent some of the pedestrian traffic but not all of it.

In the legislation of the fence that was required, we really don't know all that much about how effective it has been. I think it has been somewhat effective in States such as Arizona, but we have only built 36 miles of it.

In response to my colleague from Louisiana, we all voted for this. She described it as a dumb fence. She voted for the dumb fence. I guess I voted for the dumb fence. I didn't realize it was a dumb fence. I thought it was a commitment we made to the American people to secure the border.

I will certainly concede that there are other ways in which we can combine manpower, technology, and infrastructure along the border to make it more secure. However, a border fence is a cost-effective component.

I would say to my colleague from Louisiana, there are dollars in this bill, $6.5 billion for border security, some of which is dedicated-- $1.5 billion is dedicated to fencing infrastructure and those sorts of things.

The cost I mentioned in my earlier remarks, if we look at it on a per-mile basis to build the fence--$3.2 million per mile--we would be looking at somewhere around $1 billion less than the amount allowed for and allocated in the bill for fencing and infrastructure and those sorts of things.

But this is not a new issue. The Senator from Louisiana voted for the dumb fence. I think many of us in the Senate at the time--and I mentioned earlier many of the Senators here, including Obama, Clinton, and Biden, all voted for that fence.

We made a commitment to the American people we would get serious about doing this. We need to do it in the most cost-effective way, and there are many components of that. I fully understand that. But I also think a fence is a very serious and important deterrent and a commitment we made to the American people.

So the amendment, again, is very straightforward. It simply asks Congress to follow through on the commitment we made in 1996 and in 2006 and do more than 36 miles, which is what has been built so far out of the 700-mile commitment made to the American people.

Madam President, I also would like to thank the Senator from Colorado for his generosity with his time and for giving me the opportunity

to make some remarks. I have an amendment I filed which I do not think we are going to get an opportunity to have pending tonight. I hope we can get it pending at some point. I hope we can have a number of amendments pending and voted on. That is, after all, what the Senate should be about. Clearly, on an issue of this consequence to the American people and for those of us who represent States from all across the country, this is an issue that needs to be debated. That is why many of us voted to get on the bill today. I think we can all acknowledge that we have an immigration system that is broken and it needs to be fixed.

As I come to the floor to discuss this particular amendment, I am reminded that each time Congress has tried to fix our immigration system, there have been promises and more promises of a more secure border. Unfortunately, those promises are never upheld. The bill before us is well intended, but it is following the same path as past immigration bills. Under this bill, it is certain that 12 million undocumented workers will receive legal status soon after the bill is enacted. However, the border security provisions are nothing more than promises which, again, may never be upheld.

When I talk to my constituents back in South Dakota, they ask a couple of questions. The first one is: When will our Federal Government keep its promises on border security? I think that is first and foremost the issue most people see when they look at the immigration debate. They want to know why it is that we continue to talk about enforcing the law and securing the border, but we do not follow through on the steps that are necessary to do that.

They also ask the second question: Why do we need more laws? Why do we need more laws when we are not enforcing the laws that are currently on the books? It is time we follow through on the promises that have been made in the past of a more secure border. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 required 700 miles of reinforced double-layered fencing along the southern border. This goal was reaffirmed when Congress passed the Secure Fence Act in 2006. To date, less than 40 miles out of the 700 miles of fencing required by law has been completed. My amendment, amendment No. 1197, simply requires that we implement current law prior to legalization as an indication that we are serious about border security. As specified by this amendment, 350 miles of the fencing would be required prior to RPI status being granted. The completion of this section of the fence would be a tangible demonstration that this administration is serious about border security.

After RPI status is granted, the remaining 350 miles required by current law would have to be constructed during the 10-year period before registered provisional immigrants can apply for green cards.

There are a lot of issues associated with this bill. It has a lot of moving parts. There are lots of things, as this debate continues, that need to be addressed and hopefully amendments that will be offered on the floor can make this bill stronger and improve it as it goes through the process. I say to my colleagues in the Senate that if we are serious about wanting to show that we get this whole issue of border security and we are not just talking about it but actually making real changes to make our border more secure, then this amendment is one way to show it. After all, many of us acknowledge that of the many components and elements of this debate, first and foremost is that we have to address the issue of border security.

It gets talked about. There is a lot of rhetoric surrounding it. There is a lot of rhetoric in the Senate, as I mentioned earlier about this very subject where promises and commitments have been made, promises and commitments that have never been fulfilled with respect to border security.

This amendment, No. 1197, as I said, is very simple, very straightforward, and only follows through on commitments that have been made by Congress in the past and which I think the American people expect and, frankly, have a right to expect, that we would follow through on: 350 miles of fence before RPI status is granted and another 350 miles of fence prior to a green card being issued.

It is not complicated. I think in a lot of respects this issue is not complicated. It is certainly not complicated in the minds of the American people who think first and foremost this is about border security, about border enforcement, about a nation that is able to control its very borders for so many reasons, many of which have been discussed and talked about and I hope will be talked about even more in the days ahead.

I understand I do not have the opportunity to get this amendment up and pending to where it could be voted on this evening, but I certainly hope, at least as we get underway in this debate tomorrow, that those of us who have amendments we think would strengthen and improve this bill will have the opportunity to put them forward and to get them voted on.

Amendment No. 1197 is one of those. I certainly hope tomorrow the managers of the bill will be able to allow us a pathway where we can get amendments voted on. I think this will improve the bill. I think it strengthens the bill and it certainly follows through on a commitment that has been made to the American people many times over and has not yet been followed through on.

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

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

Madam President, I had hoped to be able to come down today and call up an amendment to the pending legislation, the farm bill. I understand we are not currently on the bill but, rather, in morning business. I hope to have the opportunity to try to get an amendment pending.

We have been trying now for several days to have amendments considered to the farm bill. This is a germane amendment. It is very relevant to the bill. It is one that I think the Senate, the full Senate, ought to have an opportunity to debate and ultimately to vote on. It is very unfortunate, in my view, that we are where we are on a piece of legislation that has this much consequence for our economy, for farm country, and for consumers across this country.

This is a bill that is a major piece of legislation. Unfortunately, we have not had the opportunity in the course of the days that we have been on the bill to get up amendments pending, debated, and voted on.

I can't tell you how disappointing that is to those of us who come from farm country and wish to try to shape the best farm bill we possibly can in the Senate, so that when we go to conference, which I hope we will, with the House of Representatives, we would be in the best position possible to have a bill that addresses the important needs of farmers and ranchers across this country with regard to certainty from a multiyear farm bill. This would also be a bill that we can defend to the American taxpayers, a bill that is reform oriented. It moves us into the future of agriculture, not the past.

The amendment I had hoped to offer today, amendment No. 1092, amends the commodity title of the farm bill that we have been debating. Last year the Senate passed its farm bill by a vote of 64 to 35. Sixty-four Senators voted for a farm bill that most of us believe offered a level of reform that we could support and defend to the American taxpayer.

As several of my colleagues and I pointed out during the debate on the farm bill in the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, we have deep concerns over what we believe is a step backwards in the commodity title with the creation of the adverse market payments, or what we refer to as the AMP Program. This program takes a step backwards from last year's farm bill by recreating a program with countercyclical payments and fixed target prices.

In fact, I would argue this is a policy that goes back. This policy predates cell phones. This policy predates the Internet. This is going back to 1980s-type farm policies. Last year's Senate farm bill completely eliminated this program, which meant we could honestly say we had passed a reform-minded farm bill, a farm bill that is more interested in policies that are about the future rather than the past, that are about the market, that are about making sure we have a necessary safety net in place for our farmers but

doing it in a way that is defensible to the American taxpayer and moves us on the path to reform.

Our concerns are not crop specific. There has been a lot of discussion about this being something between the Midwest or the South or regional. This is not a crop-specific concern; this is a policy- specific concern. An outdated target price program is not--is not--what most producers in this country asked us for in a new farm bill--just the opposite.

Almost every member of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee was told by our producers that a sound crop insurance program is a much higher priority. Amendment No. 1092 is simply a response to the wishes of most farmers in the United States. This amendment strikes the newly created AMP Program and places peanuts and rice back into the ARC Program or, to put it simply, this amendment replaces the commodity title in the bill that we have before us and replaces it with a reform- minded, market-oriented commodity title that was included in the farm bill that we passed last year.

I do not believe Congress is capable of setting accurate fixed prices for the next 5 years because that is precisely what the commodity title is in this bill. The House bill commodity title is even much worse in that respect. It has Congress setting, by statute--we, as Members of Congress are basically setting fixed prices for the next 5 years. The market, not Congress and not the USDA, should be setting prices for title I commodities.

If fixed target prices are set too high and commodity prices drop, history has proven farmers will once again begin planting for a government program rather than in response to market signals. This not only creates a potential unnecessary liability for taxpayers, but it also increases the risk of overproduction and negative impacts on global markets, making certain crops subject to possible WTO disputes.

This amendment not only moves us to the reforms we included in last year's farm bill, it also saves taxpayers more than $3 billion. That increases the total savings in this bill by more than 12 percent. That is $3 billion that most of our farmers have told us we don't need to spend. This is something the American farmer, the producers out there have made very, very clear and of which I would argue the American taxpayer would be very supportive.

I urge my colleagues, if we get the opportunity to debate this, to ultimately support this amendment because it would recapture the level of reform we had in last year's farm bill and save $3 billion at the same time.

There are many amendments that were filed to this bill that are not getting debated, that are not getting voted on. This is one in particular to the commodity title of the bill that saves over $3 billion from the bill before us today--over $3 billion in savings--by moving toward a market-oriented policy as opposed to a high fixed target price policy where the Congress sets in statute the target prices rather than having the market determine what those prices ought to be. That is one amendment I have offered to the commodity title of the bill.

I have another amendment to the SNAP or food title or nutrition title of the bill which would save $2 billion out of overhead administrative costs. It doesn't affect beneficiaries or income or asset eligibility standards; it simply finds savings in the food stamp program that are related to overhead administrative costs and saves $2 billion. We ought to be voting on that.

We ought to have an opportunity to debate these things and vote on these amendments. I know colleagues of mine as well have offered amendments that save dollars and make this a more responsible farm policy--a policy that is oriented toward reform and that achieves a significant amount of savings for the American taxpayer.

So I want to say again what I said at the beginning of my remarks; that is, it is unfortunate that we are where we are--debating a bill that over a decade will cost nearly $1 trillion. Of course, about 80 percent of that is in the nutrition title of the bill. But we have an opportunity to actually improve this as it moves across the floor of the Senate and proceeds into a conference with the House of Representatives, where they will have passed a bill out of the Agriculture Committee which will head to the floor and has high fixed target prices--higher fixed target prices than are included in the Senate bill--and high fixed target prices for all commodities, as opposed to the Senate bill, which has them simply for rice and for peanuts.

We are looking at heading down a path that takes us not to the future but to the past--to a time when farmers were farming for the government program rather than farming for the market; to a time when there were lots of potential disputes because these are trade-distorting, market- distorting policies that are driven by government as opposed to being driven by the market. We can do so much better, and we should do so much better for our producers across this country and for the taxpayers who ultimately foot the bill.

The amendment I have would do that. It would save over $3 billion in the commodity title of the bill, it is market-oriented reform, and it is something we ought to be considering and debating in the Senate. It is incredibly unfortunate that we are not having that opportunity.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss some of the amendments I offered to the 2013 farm bill. First of all, let me start by thanking the chairwoman and the ranking member for their leadership and listening to the voices of the members of the Agriculture Committee when it comes to reauthorizing the farm bill which is set to expire at the end of September. We have not been able to agree on all aspects of the farm bill, but our chairwoman and ranking member should, however, be recognized for their tireless work in getting a farm bill done this year.

One way or another, we need to move this process forward. We came close when the Senate passed a farm bill, but we were unable to get the House to move it. I hope this year we can complete the process and get a bill we can put on the President's desk so we are able to give the producers around this country the certainty they need when it comes to planting and making decisions about the future of their farming operations.

While this bill is commonly called the farm bill, the majority of spending is not for the agricultural producers. The nutrition title of this bill, which is primarily food stamps, or what we refer to as SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, accounts for 77 percent of the spending in the farm bill programs over the next 10 years. Let me repeat that: Seventy-seven percent of all spending in this farm bill

doesn't have anything to do with production agriculture, but is in what we refer to as the nutrition title of the farm bill.

It is important we subject all areas of Federal spending to close examination, and that includes the nutrition title of the farm bill. There should be no exceptions.

I recently introduced legislation that will reform several components of the nutrition title and save more than $30 billion from the $760 billion nutrition title, and that is a 10-year number.

These commonsense reforms to SNAP generate significant savings without altering benefits to needy families. The SNAP is exceedingly complex. We should be vigilant to ensure that taxpayers' money is indeed going to help lift those in need out of poverty instead of going to ineffective programs that are mired in bureaucracy.

I have offered several parts of the amendments of this reform package to the farm bill currently on the floor. My amendment No. 991, which I hope to have an opportunity to get voted on after we return following next week, reforms the nutrition, education, and obesity prevention grant program. While well-intended, the current structure of this program funnels 52 percent of the funding to only four States. This is an inequitable use of funds which should be spent more equitably among program participants.

My amendment restructure of these grants will allow the States to receive up to $5 per SNAP enrollee indexed for inflation. Five dollars is the median value of what is currently spent on this education program per capita across all the States.

This amendment in no way limits the capacity of the States to leverage those dollars with their own funding to deliver more nutrition education services. By reforming these grants, all recipients of SNAP benefits will have more equal access to nutrition education and obesity prevention resources that will help them make healthy choices when shopping on a budget.

This amendment will save $2 billion over the next 10 years without impacting SNAP's benefits for those in need. Again, I want to stress this: Reforming this program does not affect the true mission of SNAP, which is providing food assistance to needy families. There is nothing in this amendment that changes eligibility requirements for SNAP benefits. Even after this nutrition education program is reformed, approximately $250 million a year will still be available to the States for these education programs.

The priority of the SNAP should be providing food assistance to needy families while they work to get back on their feet. Unfortunately, the nutrition, education and obesity grant program has become so partial to just a few large States that these States are expanding the use of these grants to fund lobbying campaigns instead of reaching out to educate SNAP families on making healthy choices while shopping on a budget.

Clearly, this program is in need of reform. Making commonsense changes to the SNAP shows the American people we are holding each Federal program up to the light and making sure the taxpayers' money is being spent for the public good.

Again, these are largely administrative changes to the SNAP that do not impact SNAP benefits for those who are truly in need of food assistance. A $2 billion cut represents less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of what the Federal Government will spend on SNAP over the next 10 years.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me today in telling the American people we are committed to program integrity and quality among SNAP beneficiaries.

In the course of the next few weeks when we get back on this bill, I look forward to engaging my colleagues in a fair and open debate about how we can improve all farm bill programs that strengthen the stability and safety of our Nation's food supply for the next 5 years and beyond.

This is a commonsense amendment that saves us a couple of billion dollars which we can add to the savings in this bill in a time when we have rising deficits and debt and budgetary constraints we are operating with.

I hope we will be able to come together in the interest of reform-- reform that actually targets the administrative costs of a program and does not impact benefits that are so needed for people who truly do need food assistance. I hope to get that amendment voted on when we return to the bill.

The second amendment I want to mention today is another one I have filed, and that deals with the commodity title of the farm bill.

Last year this body passed a farm bill by a vote of 64 to 35. This was a farm bill that most of us believed offered a level of reform we could support and defend to the American taxpayer.

Several of my colleagues and I pointed out in the Agriculture Committee debate that we have deep concerns regarding what we believe is a step backward in the commodity title of this bill with the creation of the Adverse Market Payments, or what we now call the AMP Program.

This program takes us a step backward from last year's farm bill by recreating a program with countercyclical payments and fixed target prices which the Senate farm bill completely eliminated last year.

Our concerns are not crop specific, but they are policy specific. Most Agriculture Committee members were told by our producers that they don't need an additional commodity title program, and that a sound crop insurance program is a much higher priority.

My amendment No. 1092 is a response to the wishes of most of the farmers in the United States. It simply strikes the newly created and unneeded Adverse Market Payments or AMP Program and places peanuts and rice back into the ARC Program. To put it simply, this amendment restores the reform-minded, market-oriented commodity title included in the farm bill we passed in the Senate last year.

This amendment also saves taxpayers more than $3 billion relative to the bill that is on the floor today.

High target prices are an outdated concept from past farm bills. They distort planning decisions, raise trade compliance issues, and they are not an effective use of limited taxpayer dollars.

While I appreciate the work our chairwoman and ranking member have put into this farm bill, I believe the inclusion of target prices is a step backward from a market-oriented farm policy that is anchored by a strong crop insurance program.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that recaptures the level of reform we achieved in last year's farm bill, and at the same time saves more than $3 billion over the bill that is on the floor today.

Both of these amendments have been filed. I hope as the debate moves forward we can get these amendments up and voted on.

If we are serious about moving farm policy in this country in a direction of reform that is market oriented and is about the future and not the past, then this commodity title amendment makes all the sense in the world and, again, saves $3 billion over the bill that is on the floor today.

I simply say with regard to the nutrition title amendment that too saves a couple of billion dollars. It makes reforms that I think create greater efficiency in the food stamp program and helps to address what I think is a very serious need which I think we all need to be aware and conscious of in the times we are in, and that is the out-of-control spending and out-of-control debt we are passing on to our children, grandchildren, and future generations. Passing a farm bill to achieve the highest level possible of additional savings, to me, seems to be a very high priority, and both of these amendments address those particular objectives.

I look forward to getting these amendments hopefully voted on when we return.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, does the Senator from Michigan want to lock in a time agreement on the votes?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I first want to start with just a word about the tragedy in Oklahoma. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families impacted by yesterday's devastating storms, as well as the first responders and volunteers who rushed to the scene. I hope all Americans will continue to keep them in their thoughts and prayers and be looking for ways in which they can pitch in and help in this very tragic situation.

Long-Term Budget Challenges

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the long-term budget challenges facing the country and the impact those challenges are going to have on jobs, economic growth, and future generations if we do not control spending.

Last week the Congressional Budget Office released its updated budget projections, and in conjunction with that they released an analysis of the President's 2014 budget.

Once again, the CBO report underscores the long-term budget challenges facing this country. If you listen to many of the politicians here in Washington, DC, and commentators on the Democratic side reacting to the Congressional Budget Office report, you would have heard claims that the deficit and debt crisis facing this country is solved and that no further deficit reduction is needed. In fact, President Obama took to the airwaves recently in his radio address and boasted about the deficits ``shrinking at the fastest rate in decades.''

These claims about last week's Congressional Budget Office report strike me as odd, particularly because the details of the report tell a different story. According to the CBO, the deficit for 2013 is projected to be $642 billion or 4 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product.

While the deficit may be down from its record trillion dollar-plus levels, the national debt, which is already at $16.7 trillion, continues to grow at an alarming rate--$642 billion this year alone. While it is encouraging that the deficit this year will be smaller than it was originally projected, part of those savings are due to unexpected repayments from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the revenue increases from January's fiscal cliff agreement.

The fact of the matter is a deficit 4 percent the size of the economy is nearly double the historic average. Over the next 10 years covered in the CBO's baseline projections, the national debt will grow by nearly $9 trillion to over $25 trillion.

To put that number in perspective, the country is projected to rack up over $2 billion in debt every single day over the next decade, at which point our national debt will exceed $25 trillion. This assumes the sequester remains in place. Publicly held debt will remain above 70 percent of GDP, which is much higher than the historic average of 39 percent. CBO projects that publicly held debt will continue on an upward path beyond the next decade.

This growth is driven by spending, not revenue. The CBO report confirms that revenues are projected to grow by 45.9 percent in the 8 years after the year 2015, while overall spending will grow at 55 percent during that time period, despite the fact that inflation will be 19.5 percent and economic growth 24.9 percent during that time period. Those are CBO estimates about economic growth, inflation, spending, and debt over the course of the next decade.

In other words, revenues are going up but spending is projected to grow at nearly three times the rate of inflation, meaning we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. In fact, revenues will reach 19.1 percent of GDP by the year 2023, which is well above the historic average of 17.9 percent since the end of World War II. Spending, on the other hand, will continue to grow even with the sequester, driven largely by increases in mandatory spending. Mandatory spending on programs such as Medicare is projected to grow by 79 percent from today's level over the next 10 years. Federal health care programs, including ObamaCare, are driving the surge in mandatory spending. Federal health care spending is projected to double over the next decade as the health insurance exchange subsidies kick in beginning next year. Medicare and other programs continue to grow without needed reforms to save and strengthen them.

Spending on mandatory programs and interest on the debt will consume nearly three-quarters of all Federal spending over the next 10 years, leaving little room to pay for all discretionary programs including, I might add, national defense.

To slow the rapid rise in debt this country is experiencing, we have to control the largest driver of that debt, which is spending and, in particular, mandatory entitlement spending. The alternative is a crippling national debt that is bad for the economy, bad for jobs, bad for our national security, and bad for our children and grandchildren.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, ``Such high and rising debt later in the coming decade would have serious negative consequences.'' The report goes on to say: ``Moreover, because Federal borrowing reduces national saving, over time the capital stock would be smaller and total wages would be lower . . . ''

The CBO also warns that such high levels of debt increase the risk of a fiscal crisis. The threat the rising national debt poses to our economy is real. It will impact the American people, and it will impact our economy in very real ways. It will slow economic growth, meaning fewer jobs. It will drive up interest rates, making it more expensive to borrow money to pay for a college education or to buy a home.

It is inevitable that the national debt is going to have to be addressed at some point. The question is whether we address it directly or continue kicking the can down the road, which will only make our problems much more difficult to solve.

The Congressional Budget Office also projected in their update last week that interest spending--the amount we spend to finance our debt-- is going to increase dramatically over the next several years. In fact, interest costs on prior deficit spending are going to grow from $223 billion today to $823 billion in 2023, an increase of 369 percent. Net interest costs will surpass the base defense budget in 2019, 6 years from now. Think about that. We are going to spend more in interest on the debt 6 years from now than we spend on national security, on our national defense. That is how fast the interest is going to eat up every other area of the budget.

I would hope we will be able to take this CBO report and not greet it with great fanfare and be slapping high fives because for 1 year the deficit was reduced by a couple of hundred billion over what it was supposed to be, but, rather, recognize that with $642 billion this year and a Federal debt that is going to be at $25 trillion at the end of this decade and interest payments that will exceed the amount we spend on national security, we have a serious debt crisis in this country that needs to be addressed.

It is my wish that Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and our Democratic colleagues will work with us and that the President will step forward and acknowledge we have a debt crisis. It is not a debt crisis somewhere out there in the future, it is a debt crisis today that needs to be dealt with. The CBO update, rather than alleviating that concern, puts the fine point that we need to act, and we need to act now.

I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, yesterday morning I called for the immediate resignation of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller in light of the IRS's admission that it targeted conservative groups for inappropriate scrutiny. While I was willing to give Mr. Miller and other IRS officials the benefit of the doubt until the facts were in, the Treasury Inspector General report released on Tuesday has erased any doubts as to the severity of the misconduct and the blatant incompetence in dealing with the highest levels of the IRS.

I am pleased President Obama chose to heed the call that I made, and others as well, by dismissing Mr. Miller last night. This is a necessary step, but only a first step, toward restoring the credibility and the integrity of the IRS. This scandal is much larger than any one official within the IRS. Any government official who knew about the misconduct within the IRS and decided not to make this information public should be held accountable. No American taxpayer should ever have to worry that a group they belong to or a view they espouse would subject them to less favorable tax treatment by their government. Yet the IG report has, unfortunately, confirmed this political profiling is exactly what happened.

The misconduct by the IRS is troubling for a host of reasons, but there are two questions yet to be answered that I find particularly troubling. First, how was the improper targeting of IRS agents allowed to continue for more than 18 months before it was finally brought to an end?

Secondly, how did the internal IRS process involve so many high-level IRS officials yet remain hidden from the public and from Congress for more than 2 years?

Former Commissioner Miller was quoted yesterday as saying the IRS misconduct was a result of two ``rogue'' employees in Cincinnati who were ``overly aggressive.'' Yet we now know from the IG report the IRS's attempt to deal with the targeting of conservative groups went through numerous high-level IRS officials in Washington.

We know as early as March of 2010, IRS officials in Washington were involved in applying special scrutiny to tea party and other applications with conservative-sounding names. According to the IG report, the head of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division and the IRS Chief Counsel became aware of this targeting almost 2 years ago in the summer of 2011.

Let's be clear: The scandal isn't simply a few rogue employees. The real scandal is an entire bureaucratic structure within the IRS that allowed this targeting to go on for 18 months.

Behind me is the organizational chart from the IG report showing all the offices that were involved in dealing with the improper targeting of conservative groups. As you can see, of the 12 offices on this chart, only two of these offices are based in Cincinnati. The other 10 offices are in Washington, DC. This particular office was the office-- until just last night--Acting Commissioner Steven Miller held. But as you can see, Mr. President, this is lifted directly from the IG's report. This is an organizational chart that suggests the two offices in Cincinnati were a small part of a much bigger web of offices and individuals who were involved.

This situation may have started with a few rogue employees in Cincinnati, but the idea that somehow it was confined to that one small part of the IRS structure is simply untrue. It is also misleading to suggest the IRS has been anything other than secretive and resistant to calls for greater transparency when it comes to the agency's handling of conservative groups.

We now know then-Deputy Commissioner Miller was made aware of inappropriate targeting of conservative groups as early as May of 2012. Yet for 1 year Mr. Miller did not bring this information to the attention of the public or Congress.

In June and August of 2012 I joined with fellow Republican Senators on the Finance Committee in sending letters to the IRS regarding reports the IRS was requiring conservative 501(c)(4)s to disclose their donors and expressing concerns the IRS may change regulations affecting these groups in response

to political pressures. The IRS responses to these letters did not acknowledge any special treatment of conservative groups.

In November Mr. Miller became the Acting IRS Commissioner, and in this capacity he testified before the Senate Finance Committee regarding the issue of tax fraud and ID theft. He did not take that opportunity to make remarks or to comment on the subject of targeting conservative groups. Time and time again high-level IRS officials deliberately avoided disclosing information regarding the targeting of conservative groups.

The American people deserve to know that action will be taken to ensure the IRS will never participate in this kind of partisanship again, and they deserve to know that leaders of such agencies will be held accountable for such breaches of trust. These actions undermine the confidence the American people have in the IRS to objectively and transparently administer our Nation's tax laws.

These actions by the IRS are a continuation of a troubling trend from the self-proclaimed most transparent administration in history. All of these incidents are beginning to add up to a growing credibility gap between this administration under President Obama and the high standard of public service the American people deserve.

Now, thanks to ObamaCare, the IRS will be administering parts of the health care law. The IRS's power will grow as they become responsible for determining whether Americans have satisfied the government mandate to have health insurance and whether the government will pay for part of that coverage through refundable tax credits.

As noted by the National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, ObamaCare is ``the most extensive social benefit program the IRS has been asked to implement in recent history.''

As I previously mentioned, this isn't the only ObamaCare-related scandal that has come to light this week. Over the weekend the Washington Post reported that Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has been soliciting donations from health care executives to fund left-leaning organizations that are trying to work hand-in-hand with HHS to enroll individuals in ObamaCare exchanges.

If these reports are accurate, the actions taken by the Secretary represent a very serious conflict of interest. Companies and organizations should never be pressured for money because it sends the message that contributions are necessary to secure favorable regulatory decisions, creating a pay-to-play environment.

Earlier this week David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to President Obama, said it isn't possible for the President to be aware of all these problems in government because government is simply too big. It is mind-blowing to consider how large the Federal Government is and how the one individual responsible for this $3.6 trillion entity can't even keep tabs on all the activity. Perhaps this is exactly why we should be focused on policies that shrink the size of government so it can be more transparent and more accountable to citizens of this country.

Chief Justice John Marshall, in the seminal opinion McCulloch v. Maryland, wrote: ``The power to tax is the power to destroy.'' Those words still ring true nearly 200 years later.

This administration is using one of its greatest powers--the power to tax--to destroy one of the people's strongest God-given rights, the right to free political speech. This isn't just an attack on certain conservative groups, it is an attack on all of our rights to assemble and to express free political speech without the fear of repercussion from our government. President Obama has a long way to go to restore public confidence and to stop the growing credibility gap that so far has plagued his second term.

I look forward to next Tuesday's oversight hearing in the Finance Committee where I hope we can begin the process of reining in a government agency that has run amuck.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize KELOLAND TV's 60th anniversary. Opening their doors on May 19, 1953, KELOLAND became South Dakota's first television station. Over the past 60 years, KELOLAND has been a source for critical information and programming to countless South Dakotans.

Providing timely news, weather, and sports across the rural and vast South Dakota plains is no simple task, but through hard work and dedication, KELOLAND has served South Dakota with continuous and critical coverage of all the news of the day. Through challenging times in South Dakota, KELOLAND has been a mainstay for viewers in the region to turn to for up-to-date coverage of the events and happenings in their local communities. In October of 1954, KELOLAND offered its first live programming, which led shortly after to KELOLAND offering the first live sporting event in February of 1957. On March 11, 1955, ``Captain 11'' signed on for the first time. Little did they know that ``Captain 11'' would become the longest continuous running children's program in the world. ``Captain 11'' ran for 42 years before signing off for the last time on December 28, 1996.

In September of 1968, KELOLAND added live color cameras. The year 1997 was very busy for KELOLAND due to the September introduction of the Live Doppler Network, which brought live weather radar pictures to South Dakota homes, and the December launch of Keloland.com, which gave South Dakotans the ability for the first time to check their local news online. In 2011, KELOLAND made two more cutting-edge technology advancements by creating their first mobile phone app, in February, followed by offering full high definition broadcasting in October.

KELOLAND has provided critical information for the State of South Dakota for 60 years; however, its impact on the region and the community it serves does not stop there. In the spring of 1998, a violent tornado tore through the town of Spencer, and in an effort to help rebuild the Spencer community, KELOLAND organized a telethon to assist the victims of the tragedy. The telethon was a success and raised more than $1 million.

KELOLAND's commitment to excellence and to its service to the region has not only been recognized by South Dakotans but also on a national stage. Along with winning 10 regional Emmy Awards, KELOLAND, in August of 2000, was awarded an Emmy for its outstanding public service.

KELOLAND's commitment to service to the State of South Dakota makes it an honor to congratulate them on their 60th anniversary of broadcasts and wish them another 60 years of success.

Mr. President, I wish today to honor the life and accomplishments of Al Neuharth.

Al Neuharth was born in Eureka, SD, on March 22, 1924, where he spent his childhood years. Al's passion for journalism was evident at a very young age when at 11 he began his first job working as a newspaper carrier in his hometown. In high school, Al began writing for his school newspaper and later became editor.

Soon after his graduation, Neuharth enlisted in the Army. Al honorably served his country during World War II in the 86th Infantry Division, under General Patton's 3rd Army. During his time in the service, Neuharth was awarded the Bronze Star and the Combat Infantryman's Badge for his bravery.

After the war, Neuharth moved back to South Dakota, where he enrolled at the University of South Dakota. In 1950, he graduated with a degree in Journalism and upon graduation began working at the Associated Press in Sioux Falls, launching a historic career.

In 1953, Neuharth moved to Florida to work for the Miami Herald. After spending several years at the Herald, in 1960 Neuharth left to work at the Detroit Free Press. In 1966, Neuharth launched a new paper called ``Today,'' which would later become ``Florida Today'' and eventually grow into the USA TODAY which was published for the first time on September 15, 1982. The USA TODAY would grow rapidly throughout the country and in 2001 was the most widely read paper in the country.

Neuharth's career also included becoming the chairman and CEO of Gannett Co., Inc., where he oversaw a drastic expansion of the company's holdings. In 1991, Neuharth founded Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan international foundation dedicated to free press, free speech, and free spirit to all people. Freedom Forum funds and operates the Newseum, a museum dedicated to the history and impact of journalism. In 1999, Neuharth was honored for his lifetime achievements by the National Press Foundation with the Distinguished Contributions to Journalism Award.

Al Neuharth passed away on April 19, 2013, at Cocoa Beach, FL, at the age of 89. He will be forever remembered for his impact on journalism and will always be one of South Dakota's favorite sons.

I ask the Senator from North Dakota if he will yield for a question?

This is an issue that is important to both his State and my State for many reasons, not the least of which is we have basically flooded 1.6 million acres of prime bottom land, some of the richest agricultural land in our States, in order to prevent flooding downstream. Then of course there were also stated other various uses of the water that would be allowed for the States that were impacted when this occurred.

But I wonder if my colleague from North Dakota--he has already touched upon many of the reasons why this should not happen, but he is a former Governor of his State. I know our Governor and our attorney general have made it abundantly clear that if the corps moves forward, they intend to file a lawsuit and they will litigate this. As a former Governor, if the now-Senator from North Dakota could respond to how his State of North Dakota might act in the event this actually were implemented by the corps?

It strikes me at least that this is without precedent. This is something that--the Flood Control Act was passed in 1944 and the dams were built subsequent to that. For the past 50 years our States have had access to this water and it is something that is a State right. There is no legal or statutory--there is no historical precedent for doing this. I am wondering how the former Governor of North Dakota might view this as a Governor, as to what his action might be in the event the Corps of Engineers were to move forward with this. Because it certainly would impact a lot of the industrial users, water users in the State, businesses, tribes--a lot of folks are going to be impacted if the corps moves forward with this proposal. If the Senator from North Dakota might tell me as former Governor how he might view this and what he would intend to do and what our Governor and attorney general would intend to do in the event the corps moves forward.

Will the Senator yield for another question, if I might?

Our attorney general wrote a letter and said:

This proposal, whether disguised as a reallocation or

surplus water, exceeds the Corps' regulatory authority and

violates basic principles of federalism.

It went on to lay out the reasons why they, our State, would obviously enter into litigation if it comes to that, if it is necessary in order to protect the rights of South Dakotans to the water that is rightfully theirs.

I would be interested in knowing as well from the Senator from North Dakota if in fact, during the course of the last many years, his amendment would change anything, if his amendment would change anything that is happening today? In other words, today what happens if the State wants to use water in one of the mainstream dams--and there are six mainstream dams, one in Montana, a big one in North Dakota, and then we have four in South Dakota, all of which were created by the Flood Control Act or authorized. These were dams built to protect from flooding downstream and then also authorized various uses of that water.

I might point out what some of those uses are. They were to be for enhanced navigation, cheap hydro power, irrigation, programs to increase public recreation facilities, municipal-industrial water supplies, and fish and wildlife populations. Those are some of the things that are stated that the water is to be used for.

The Senator's amendment, which would prevent the corps from charging for this water, as I understand it, doesn't change anything, the practice as it exists today, because a water user would request an easement from the corps, and then essentially the State would have to issue the water. That is my understanding of how it works today.

Does any of that change--if it is passed--as far as the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota?

Mr. President, I want to welcome our other colleague from North Dakota who also has experience as a litigator in protecting the interests of her State. Perhaps she could also comment on what actions the States might take if the corps moves forward.

I want to point out to my colleagues, and perhaps the Senator is already aware of this, but I am looking at some things that are proposed charges that the corps would make under this proposal, although I don't think they have stated explicitly what that might be. But it ends up being a significant amount.

In fact, over the Lewis and Clark leg, which is Gavins Point--or I should say, Lewis and Clark Dam--they are talking about $174 per acre foot of yield from Lewis and Clark Lake. We are talking about businesses, individuals, tribes, and industrial users having access to water they believe--and I think we all believe--is something that was promised to them when this legislation was passed way back in the 1940s.

We have essentially 70 years of precedent where it has been the case that the States have access and can rightfully use that water for those various purposes as authorized under the legislation. This would move away from that and start to impose these fees, which I think over time get to be quite excessive.

I appreciate the work that has been done by the Senator from North Dakota Mr. Hoeven in terms of trying to get the CBO to evaluate this in the proper context. For a while they were talking about the scoring impact that was much larger than many of us believed it would be. Again, it is a hypothetical situation. It is not happening today.

All the Senator is simply doing is saying we want to keep in place the rules of the game as they have applied to the mainstem dams for the past 50 years--70 years since the authorization in the legislation that created it, but also since the dams were built.

I guess I would say to my colleagues from North Dakota, I appreciate their good work, and I would simply reiterate--as a South Dakotan, downstream from North Dakota--that our States, and all the States in the upper basin, would be dramatically impacted by this because it would be a precedent that would be entirely new.

Literally, this is something we have not dealt with since we had the dams and the lakes in our States. Again, this would be at a tremendous sacrifice in terms of the amount of prime bottom land that was given up when the dams were built and the land was taken.

I now defer to the former attorney general of North Dakota, Senator Heitkamp, for some observations she might have with respect to that issue.

I would just say to both of my colleagues from North Dakota, that is an absolutely accurate observation.

If we look at who is impacted--and we have the Standing Rock Tribe that is partly in North Dakota and partly in South Dakota so it crosses the State border. We have the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, the Coal Creek Sioux Tribe, the Yankton Tribe. We have a whole bunch of reservations as we go right down that corridor of the Missouri River that would be profoundly impacted. As we mentioned earlier, when this land was given up, when the dams were built, this was a lot of not only private land but tribal-held land which they gave up. This would directly impact the access they would have to water that is rightfully theirs.

So in addition to the concerns our States have and our attorneys general have, we also have a lot of tribes that have a very vested interest in making sure this doesn't happen. That is why it is so important that our colleagues support the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota, because as was pointed out by Senator Heitkamp, this is precedent setting. If they can do this here, they may try and do it someplace else.

I also think--and the point was made by both of my colleagues--this is a very practical consideration. It will cost the Federal Government and our States a lot more than what they are saying this is going to achieve in terms of revenues when this goes to court. Both the States and the Federal Government will be locked up, I would suspect, in litigation for some time. The amount of revenues that would be raised by the fees that would be imposed under the various proposals that are being advanced by the corps simply would pale in comparison to the litigation costs that would be involved.

So that is a very practical consideration. I concur. I am not a lawyer, and I certainly am not a former attorney general or former Governor. I know both of my colleagues have experience with these issues. But I can tell my colleagues from talking with our Governor and our attorney general they are highly confident that legally this is a very open-and-shut situation and a case in which our State would prevail. So it seems sort of crazy in a way that we would even have to go down that trail, and I hope we can prevent it from happening by having our colleagues join us in support of this amendment.

One final point of clarification and perhaps the Senator from North Dakota can react and comment on this as well.

My understanding is, of course, that this doesn't have any impact on the master manual, the way in which the corps manages the reservoir. So the degree to which there might be concern about whether this is our water versus their water, which historically has plagued a lot of the discussions about the Missouri River--upstream-downstream interests. As the Senator from North Dakota pointed out, the water is going to get used. It is water that is either stored or used. I think it is a question of whether we are going to be charged, the users of that water are going to be charged, and that does, of course, create precedent. If that is something they can do here, the question is, What is the next State? Because this violates a principle of federalism, as pointed out by the attorney general of South Dakota in his letter to the Corps of Engineers.

But I wanted to say for the record, perhaps to those who are viewing this as an upstream-downstream battle, that is not the case. This does not affect the master manual, to my knowledge, and I ask the Senator from South Dakota to react to that as well.

Mr. President, today I recognize Hannah Mudd, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.

Hannah is a graduate of St. Vincent de Paul High School in Perryville, MO. Currently, she is attending Saint Mary's College, where she is majoring in political science and history. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Hannah for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Karina Kiewel, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.

Karina is a graduate of Dakota Valley High School in North Sioux City, SD. Currently, she is attending the University of Kansas, where she is majoring in political science and environmental studies. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Karina for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).