Deb Fischer

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD- 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Importance of MAP-21 Reauthorization: Federal and State Perspectives.''

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28, 2015, at 10 a.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Freight Rail Transportation: Enhancing Safety, Efficiency, and Commerce.''

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28, 2015, at 1:30 p.m in room SH-219 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28, 2015, at 4 p.m., in room SR-216 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, last week my colleague Senator Lankford and I introduced the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act--a bill to enhance transparency about the true costs of burdensome Federal regulations affecting our States and localities. Twenty years ago the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, otherwise known as UMRA, was signed into law to reduce the burden of Federal mandates on State and local governments, as well as the private sector. The statute was intended to fix a simple problem while promoting informed decisions by this Congress. But since UMRA's enactment in 1995, many remain concerned that the law has fallen short. In Nebraska and all across America, our constituents continue to face a growing mountain of redtape that stifles economic growth and holds back progress on a number of fronts. In 2011 alone the Government Accountability Office identified 14 different loopholes that would allow government agencies to avoid conducting the UMRA analysis. In other words, redtape has survived and prospered. By their very nature, Federal mandates are both complex and vague, which is why I have introduced a new bill to fix these shortcomings and increase accountability. My bill, known as the Unfunded Mandates and Information Transparency Act, would address UMRA's loopholes by mandating stricter agency requirements, enhance stakeholder input, and strengthen enforcement mechanisms. Furthermore, this bill has the power to get the job done. It would allow judges to place a stay on a regulation or invalidate a rule if a Federal agency fails to complete the required UMRA analysis. It would also close a glaring loophole used by agencies to skirt UMRA requirements. Last but not least, my bill would expand the scope of reporting requirements to include regulations imposed by independent regulatory agencies, such as the EPA. I know many Nebraskans are deeply concerned about the effects of new EPA requirements, such as the proposed water rule--a rule I have forcefully fought since it was first proposed. Nebraskans already go to great lengths to protect and preserve water resources within our State, but now the EPA is going overboard with this new proposal--one that represents a massive Federal power grab and clear disconnect with Main Street America. I share the belief of many Nebraskans that the Federal Government should be held responsible for the rules it puts into place. By clearly notifying taxpayers of the costs of each mandate, which the bill I introduced would require, we can better hold the Federal Government accountable for the economic impact of its costly regulations. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this simple, commonsense legislation to help bring greater accountability and transparency to Washington. I thank the Presiding Officer and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, our national parks are facing $13 billion in maintenance needs. The entire Federal land of States is looking at $22 billion in needs. We want to keep these resources and parks open for our children and grandchildren to marvel at and enjoy. All of us have unique and special areas within our States, but we in Congress have the responsibility to care for the natural resources of our country. This amendment has been softened so that the limitations are now just considerations. Let's vote yes on this amendment to take care of the resources we have so that future generations can enjoy them.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, this amendment would create limitations for new Federal land designations to ensure responsible management of our natural resources. These limitations are modeled on those in the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, which authorizes the protection of national marine sanctuaries. Under the act, the Commerce Secretary cannot designate a new sanctuary unless the Secretary publishes a finding that, No. 1, the addition of a new sanctuary will not have a negative impact on the overall system, and No. 2, sufficient resources were available in the fiscal year in which the finding is made to effectively implement management plans for each sanctuary in the system. These are commonsense limitations that ensure the administration will not add more land to the Federal system without considering the impacts to the overall system and without sufficient funds to manage those resources effectively. At a time when the national park system has a $13 billion maintenance backlog, we need to consider the impacts to the overall system and whether there are sufficient resources to effectively manage additional land holdings. In the context of energy policy, we should also consider our stewardship choices. American energy production on private and State- owned lands has increased significantly in recent years while decreasing on Federal lands. Through leasing restrictions and permitting delays, the Obama administration has tied up energy production on Federal lands in redtape. Since 2009 oil production on Federal lands is down by 6 percent, and natural gas production on Federal lands is down 28 percent. Meanwhile, oil production on non- Federal land has risen by 61 percent, and natural gas production on non-Federal land is up by 33 percent. By limiting Federal land designations, more land should continue to be held privately or managed by States and local governments, increasing the opportunity for productive and beneficial use. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 18.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his comments. Mr. President, I, too, come to the floor to speak on the great improvements to our economy due to energy production. The American oil and gas surge has created jobs across this country and renewed investments in infrastructure, transforming many unlikely States and cities into energy hubs for fuel production. Over the past 5 years alone the United States has increased our domestic supply of oil and gas by 50 percent. In an amazing turnaround the United States is now on track to overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's top oil producer, resulting in the creation of thousands of American jobs and greater savings for consumers. The natural gas industry has also grown tremendously and in the United States has become one of the world's No. 1 producers. Across this great Nation we are fortunate to have a diverse portfolio of energy resources, including coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, natural gas, and multiple renewable energy resources such as ethanol, wind, and solar. These resources can be used to improve the lives of all Americans. American consumers are now blessed with multiple options to obtain the affordable, reliable energy that is being produced in an environmentally responsible manner, but in order to maintain and grow our domestic energy security we need to have policies that support that goal. Unfortunately, President Obama has given only lip service to an ``all of the above'' energy strategy while pushing a counteragenda that has restricted domestic production and energy choices. That costs Americans billions of dollars. Meanwhile, the EPA is taking this anti-American energy agenda to a new level with proposals that jeopardize the affordability and reliability of electricity for all Americans. The EPA's proposed rule for existing powerplants would force the premature retirement of efficient, low-cost coal-fueled generation, leading to the potential loss of billions of dollars of investments made over the past decade to make coal plants cleaner. These proposals would make it nearly impossible for the United States--which possesses the world's largest reserves of coal--to continue to utilize this affordable and abundant energy source. Nebraska's families and businesses, which depend on coal-fired generation for nearly two-thirds of their electric needs, are going to be disproportionately penalized under this plan. Under this administration the Federal Government has quashed energy projects by slow-walking, politicizing, and rejecting routine permits to build energy infrastructure such as the Keystone Pipeline. This important project has the clear capacity to grow our economy and maintain our energy security. On this floor we have heard many comments during this debate about the Nebraska Legislature and what was done with regard to the Keystone Pipeline. Let me set the record straight. I was in the Nebraska Legislature at that time. In fact, the proposed pipeline route crosses my former legislative district. By the way, I am a cattle rancher. I live in the Nebraska Sandhills and I live over the Ogalalla Aquifer. The legislation was not coerced and the Nebraska Legislature was certainly not confused, as some of my colleagues on the other side have implied. The Nebraska Legislature is a very open and public process. Every bill--every single bill that is introduced--has a public hearing, and our citizens are welcome and encouraged to come to those public hearings to express their opinions before legislative committees. We also have three stages of debate. We have three stages of debate on every single bill before that final vote. The Nebraska Legislature made decisions dealing with the pipeline siting within our borders. The bill passed on a 44-to-5 vote. I would also mention that the entire Nebraska congressional delegation--which does include a Democratic Congressman from the Second Congressional District who also served in the Nebraska Legislature--is united in our support for this bill. Last week this bill was called an opening gambit or spin by some of my colleagues. For the vast majority of Nebraskans, this is about certainty. Nebraskans want a decision made. This has been going on for 6 years. It is time for the President to make a decision. I am also working on some commonsense amendments to improve the arduous NEPA approval process and to protect private property energy production. I am also going to be offering amendments to set commonsense limitations for Federal land designation. I am excited about the opportunities we have to pursue policies where we can champion the productive use of America's energy resources in this Congress and where we will be able to capitalize on our country's energy prosperity. I am excited and looking forward to an open amendment process where we can do our jobs, where we can offer amendments, where we can debate those amendments, and most importantly where we can vote because that is the only way we are held accountable to our constituents, the American people. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to begin my remarks by expressing my deep gratitude to a hard-working public servant and loyal friend, Mike Hybl. Mike and I have known each other for more than 10 years. I was so grateful that after I was elected to the Senate his wife Chris gave her blessing so he could come to Washington to serve as my chief of staff. Mike has had a long career of public service working for his fellow Nebraskans, including two decades in the Nebraska legislature, where he provided policy and legal advice to a number of our State's top leaders. In this role and in the private sector, Mike has brought a wealth of experience on a range of issues. Before coming to the Senate, he also served as executive director of the Nebraska Public Service Commission for nearly 6 years. When I chaired the Nebraska Legislature's Transportation and Telecommunications Committee, I had the chance to work closely with Mike to improve infrastructure across our State. When the time came for me to choose a chief of staff, I had exactly one name in mind, and that was Mike Hybl. His integrity, his level head, and his tireless work have served him well in Washington. Anyone who has ever opened a Senate office from the ground up appreciates the unique challenges that come with being a chief of staff and being a chief of staff for a freshman Senator. A wide range of skills are required to hire staff, establish operations, and even to pick out paint samples. Through it all Mike was patient, he was persistent, and he worked closely with me to always ensure that the interests of Nebraskans were and remain the top priority. He never lost his sense of purpose. He always kept us laughing with those deadpan one-liners. After 2 years on the job, Mike will be returning home to God's country, the State of Nebraska, which we both love so much. I have no doubt that in whatever path Mike chooses next, he will continue to work for the people of Nebraska. I thank his family, his wife Chris, his son Patrick, his daughter Emma, for letting me have him and letting the State have him here for 2 more years. I know they are looking forward to spending more time with Mike as he moves back home in the coming weeks. On behalf of all Nebraskans, I do thank Mike Hybl for his many years of service to our State and for his leadership as my chief of staff for the last 2 years. I thank him for his counsel, his candor, and his leadership. Mike, you are going to be missed, but know you have made a difference. Welcoming New Colleagues Mr. President, I would also like to welcome our new colleagues to a new year and a new Congress and to the Presiding Officer as well. Great Challenges For Our Nation Our Nation is facing many great challenges from threats to our national security to a languishing economy that is starting to show signs of revival. We have been granted a sacred trust by the people we represent to decrease barriers to opportunity and growth, and we have been entrusted by voters to alleviate the burdens that misguided policies have placed on the backs of hardworking American families. I have been honored to serve as the voice for Nebraska in the Senate for the past 2 years, and I am excited to take on the important issues we face in this new Congress. As we begin this new year, I wish to share some of the priorities I am going to be focusing on. Congress's first duty is to defend this Nation. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am committed to working to neutralize the growing threats to our homeland, to our allies, and to destroy our enemies. We must maintain our presence as a powerful force for good. Peace through strength is a proven strategy. However, it also requires us to meet the changing demands and needs of our military, including the need for a more robust strategy to counter increased cyber warfare. At the same time, providing for a strong defense abroad also requires a robust economy here at home. In my home State of Nebraska people have faced an onslaught of Washington redtape--from middle-class families struggling with Obamacare's broken promises to community banks that are forced to meet impossible new standards. Moreover each new day seems to bring about costly new Federal regulations from agencies such as EPA. Washington's invasive reach is unending. Now we have bureaucracies at the EPA attempting to regulate everything from farm ditches to backyard ponds. This overregulation is killing jobs, driving up consumer costs, and disproportionately hurting families who still feel too much economic pain. Far too often we focus on complex terms and big picture policies without looking at people and families and how they are impacted. From a mother working multiple jobs to put her children through school to a young woman who is a college graduate hoping to start a career, millions of people are being impacted by policies that are hampering our growth and our potential. Similar to most Nebraskans, I believe we need to do more to promote innovation and economic growth so there are more opportunities and greater options. That means a simpler, fairer Tax Code, more regulatory certainty for job creators and modern rules for new technology. We must help and not hold back innovators and small businesses so they can grow, expand, and invest in the people who make them great. Tackling any of these problems must begin by shining the light on the waste, fraud, and abuse occurring in our Federal Government. The American people have sent a clear message to Washington this past November. They have had enough. They have had enough of a do-nothing Senate. They have had enough of the White House side-stepping Congress and running roughshod with Executive orders. The American people are demanding accountability and now with this Congress that is going to happen. There is much to be done and it starts with keeping the priorities of our middle class at the forefront. I for one am excited to face these challenges each and every day in 2015, and I thank Nebraskans for the privilege of serving as their voice in the Senate. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I wish to speak on a provision in the appropriations measure. I am pleased to see that this legislation includes a provision in Division D-Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2015, which addresses a concern raised by farmers and ranchers around the country. Section 111 of the General Provisions relating to the Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program states that: ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to require a permit for the discharge of dredged or fill material under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for the activities identified in subparagraphs (A) and (C) of section 404(f)(1) of the Act.'' In section 404(f)(1) of the Clean Water Act, Congress provided a permitting exemption for certain activities including normal farming, forestry, and ranching activities, upland soil and water conservation practices, and the construction and maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches and the maintenance of drainage ditches. One would think that with this clear exemption, our farmers and ranchers could go about their business without worrying about whether EPA or the Corps of Engineers would try to regulate plowing, seeding, and harvesting, or their farm ponds and ditches. Unfortunately, in recent years EPA and the Corps of Engineers have been trying to circumvent the 404(f)(1) permitting exemptions by interpreting the limited ``recapture'' provision in section 404(f)(2) in such an expansive way as to virtually swallow up the exemptions in 404(f)(1). A farmer's field is not a water of the U.S. A farm pond is not a water of the U.S. An irrigation ditch is not a water of the U.S. But, there are overzealous regulators out there who disagree. We have seen the Corps try to regulate a family farm when the farmer tried to change from a ditch irrigation system to a piped irrigation system to improve water efficiency. The Corps argued that there would be runoff from the work and that runoff somehow made the work subject to permitting under section 404. Section 111 stops that regulatory overreach and preserves the protections Congress has provided to ranchers and farmers by making it clear that the recapture provisions of section 404(f)(2) do not apply to normal farming, forestry, and ranching activities, upland soil and water conservation practices, and the construction and maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches and the maintenance of drainage ditches. Of course, the greatest abuse of the Clean Water Act is the Obama Administration's proposed ``waters of the United States'' rule, and this section does not alleviate the concerns that farmers, small businesses, and local communities have with the proposed rule. This section will, however, ensure that the will of Congress to protect farmers and ranchers from burdensome 404 permitting requirements is carried out, and I will continue to do everything in my power to stop EPA from finalizing the proposed ``waters of the United States'' rule next year.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to celebrate the legacy of my dear friend, my colleague, and my fellow Nebraskan, Senator Mike Johanns. Senator Johanns has dedicated more than three decades of his life to serving the people of Nebraska and also this Nation. His career in public service began at the local level, where he was elected to the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners. He later joined the Lincoln City Council, and eventually became mayor of Nebraska's capital city where he served for two terms. Perhaps the most infamous decision Senator Johanns ever made throughout his career in public service was in his days as mayor of Lincoln. After an early season winter storm dropped more than a foot of heavy wet snow on Lincoln in late October, Mayor Johanns decided to cancel Halloween. He cited power outages and hazardous downed power lines. As you can imagine, this news was not received well among some of those Lincolnites. To this day, constituents haven't forgotten and they still occasionally remind him of how he deprived an entire city of trick or treats on that fateful October evening. He made up for it, though, when he and his wife Stephanie treated children who came to trick or treat at the mansion. Fortunately, this incident didn't deal a death blow to Senator Johanns' political career. He went on to serve as Governor of Nebraska and was reelected to a second term. As Governor, he focused on fiscal discipline and the responsible use of limited State tax dollars, principles he upheld here in the Senate as well. At one point, as Governor, he even vetoed an entire 2-year budget proposal because it raised taxes to expand government power. He also championed ambitious mental health reforms that allowed patients to receive care in the stability and in the security of their own communities where they could be near their loved ones. A decade later, these reforms in Nebraska are still regarded as a major milestone in improving mental health care. Before he was a Senator or a Governor or a mayor or a city councilman, he worked on his family's dairy farm. That is not easy work. And as Mike puts it, it is a job that builds character and humility. Growing up on a dairy farm, he would milk cows every day before school, sometimes even taking the tractor halfway to town in the winter months when the roads were so bad that the schoolbus couldn't get out to his farm. This upbringing gave Senator Johanns a great appreciation and a deep understanding for the needs of our Nation's ag producers, so it was no surprise when President George W. Bush selected him to lead the Department of Agriculture as its Secretary. Mike dutifully served in this role, overseeing a new reform-oriented farm bill and opening doors to new global markets for our Nation's ag producers. As Secretary of Agriculture, he saw firsthand the challenges facing hungry nations. It was in this role that he fell in love with the people of Africa, and he has worked here in the Senate to develop food aid programs that not only feed but also empower hungry populations around the world. Senator Johanns has tirelessly worked for our State and our Nation. He brought to the Senate a unique perspective, having served virtually every level of government. His well-rounded approach to his work here reflects that rare wisdom. Many of us here have had the pleasure of working closely with him because he always makes a point to work with his colleagues regardless of party affiliation, whether it be on complex legislation or that annual Senate secret Santa tradition. We are all familiar with the confident, peaceful demeanor he brings to the Senate, and his plain-spoken clarity will truly be missed once he leaves Congress. This is who Mike Johanns is. It is who he has always been: a quiet workhorse with a soft spot for the world's most disadvantaged, and a burning desire to help wherever he can. Friends back home who have known him since before he began his career in public service will tell you that he is the same man today he was back then-- never losing sight of his goal of helping people, never getting a big head, and always putting Nebraska first. The Senator's wife Stephanie has been by his side throughout every step of this tremendous journey, always supportive and steadfast. Anyone who knows Mike knows he and Steph are inseparable. I am sure they are both looking forward to having more time to spend with family next year. Mike, you are a statesman and a model citizen. I am thankful for all the work you have done for Nebraska and for the entire Nation. You have set such a great example for your fellow Senators, and we all appreciate your dedication over these past 32 years. You have served Nebraska with dignity and integrity. Good luck. I wish you and Stephanie all the best. God bless you both. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, today I introduced the Helping Innovation and Revitalizing Innovation Act. It is a Federal Communications Commission, FCC, process reform idea called the HIRE Act. This measure seeks to make the FCC more efficient and accountable in processing new technology applications. Section 7 of the Communications Act requires the FCC to review new technologies and determine whether or not approval is in the public interest within one year of application--a deadline Congress imposed on the FCC in 1982. Part of Section 7 reads, ``The Commission shall determine whether any new technology or service proposed in a petition or application is in the public interest within one year after such petition or application is filed.'' The HIRE Act would complement Section 7. Specifically, it would: require the FCC Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis to help facilitate attention and response to pending technology applications and licenses and it would require the FCC to report to Congress any time it fails to comply with the 1-year deadline for review of such applications. Right now when the FCC misses its 1 year deadline nothing happens. The notification clause in this bill would provide a backstop for the FCC to enhance regulatory certainty for innovators and consumers alike. Specifically, the HIRE Act would bring institutional focus to the important function of approving new technologies. FCC delays stall new opportunities for investment and job creation that are critical at this time in our Nation's history. FCC delays also deprive consumers from the benefits of accessing new technologies at lower prices. The senior Republican Commissioner at the FCC, Ajit Pai, has identified assisting new technology applications as a high priority. In a July 18, 2012, speech at Carnegie Mellon University, he said, ``Bureaucratic inertia should not be a barrier to the deployment of new services or capital investment. Rather, the Commission should facilitate economic growth and job creation by making decisions in a timely manner . . . Entrepreneurs need an advocate at the FCC--one that will hold us accountable if we delay, rather than decide.'' Additionally, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE, has encouraged the FCC improve its decision-making process for spectrum management. The HIRE Act is about improving the FCC's decision-making process and supporting job creation. It is a small, common-sense reform that increases government efficiency without increasing spending. I look forward to working with consumers, businesses, and those in the Federal Government who want to make our government more effective, efficient, and responsive. The HIRE Act is one proposal that would do that, and I welcome a conversation with others about this important issue.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, today I introduced the Helping Innovation and Revitalizing Innovation Act. It is a Federal Communications Commission, FCC, process reform idea called the HIRE Act. This measure seeks to make the FCC more efficient and accountable in processing new technology applications. Section 7 of the Communications Act requires the FCC to review new technologies and determine whether or not approval is in the public interest within one year of application--a deadline Congress imposed on the FCC in 1982. Part of Section 7 reads, ``The Commission shall determine whether any new technology or service proposed in a petition or application is in the public interest within one year after such petition or application is filed.'' The HIRE Act would complement Section 7. Specifically, it would: require the FCC Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis to help facilitate attention and response to pending technology applications and licenses and it would require the FCC to report to Congress any time it fails to comply with the 1-year deadline for review of such applications. Right now when the FCC misses its 1 year deadline nothing happens. The notification clause in this bill would provide a backstop for the FCC to enhance regulatory certainty for innovators and consumers alike. Specifically, the HIRE Act would bring institutional focus to the important function of approving new technologies. FCC delays stall new opportunities for investment and job creation that are critical at this time in our Nation's history. FCC delays also deprive consumers from the benefits of accessing new technologies at lower prices. The senior Republican Commissioner at the FCC, Ajit Pai, has identified assisting new technology applications as a high priority. In a July 18, 2012, speech at Carnegie Mellon University, he said, ``Bureaucratic inertia should not be a barrier to the deployment of new services or capital investment. Rather, the Commission should facilitate economic growth and job creation by making decisions in a timely manner . . . Entrepreneurs need an advocate at the FCC--one that will hold us accountable if we delay, rather than decide.'' Additionally, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE, has encouraged the FCC improve its decision-making process for spectrum management. The HIRE Act is about improving the FCC's decision-making process and supporting job creation. It is a small, common-sense reform that increases government efficiency without increasing spending. I look forward to working with consumers, businesses, and those in the Federal Government who want to make our government more effective, efficient, and responsive. The HIRE Act is one proposal that would do that, and I welcome a conversation with others about this important issue.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise to express my strong frustration--and the frustration of Nebraskans--with the Senate's current debate. Similar to many of my colleagues, I spent the past 5 weeks traveling my State and meeting with constituents. I held over one dozen listening sessions in communities all across Nebraska. Not a single Nebraskan told me to go back to Washington and vote to limit free speech. Not a single Nebraskan told me to come and play politics or take show votes. The message I received from almost every Nebraskan was the same: Get something done, turn the economy around, deal with overregulation, help control the costs of health care, and help businesses create jobs. Prevailing concern with the economy and weak job growth exists all across our country. According to several leading economists, 225,000 jobs were supposed to be created last month. Instead, the number of jobs created was just 142,000. The real unemployment rate--those who are unemployed or underemployed--remains unacceptably high at nearly 12 percent. That is 19 million Americans who are out of work or want to work more hours. It is a disgrace the Senate is not debating policies that will help them. Instead, we are debating a bill to limit free speech. It is no wonder the American people have such a poor opinion of Congress. Seriously, what are we doing here? In Washington, those in power are more concerned with winning elections so they can stay in power than with actually governing and making tough decisions that will protect our country and help our families, and that is what we are doing today with another show vote, another sound bite that is engineered by campaign strategists who don't have any interest in sound policy. I wish to address the two proposals before the Senate this week--a resolution to amend the Bill of Rights and campaign legislation that is targeting women voters. The resolution offered by the Senator from New Mexico is, I believe, a clear attack on the First Amendment and a series of recent Supreme Court rulings. The measure grants unlimited authority to Congress and State legislatures to criminalize speech on any platform, and that includes the Internet. This proposal guts the First Amendment and the principles of free speech that have endured since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. It further empowers incumbent politicians to make decisions with less accountability, and it muffles the voices of private citizens. It is perverse that the Senate is actually devoting time to debating the constitutional amendment that would actually diminish democratic participation and decrease freedom. What have we become? In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the ACLU wrote that the proposed amendment ``would severely limit the First Amendment, lead directly to government censorship of political speech and result in a host of unintended consequences that would undermine the goals the amendment has been introduced to advance--namely encouraging vigorous political dissent and providing voice to the voiceless, which we, of course, support.'' The ACLU is not exactly an ally of the Republican Party, but their letter shows there is broad concern over this poorly crafted resolution. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand for free speech, to stand for democratic participation, and to reject this resolution.

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

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the need to strengthen American families and enhance workplace flexibility, and I am very pleased to be joined here on the floor of the Senate this morning by my good friend the junior Senator from Maine. In Nebraska and all throughout the country, too many families continue to struggle in this weak economy. Even with moms and dads working two or three jobs, some families find it hard to get ahead. Household income has plummeted by more than $3,300, and 3.7 million more women are in poverty. The average price for a gallon of gas has nearly doubled, and the labor force participation rate has declined by 2.9 percentage points since 2009. Many economists agree that the surest way to generate sustained economic growth and empower struggling families is to pass comprehensive tax reform. Addressing overregulation should also be a top priority. Moreover, it is a simple truth that less government spending means families will keep more of their own money. Agreement on how exactly to achieve these needed fiscal reforms remains elusive and, unfortunately, unlikely in a Capitol paralyzed with election fever. Nonetheless, there are reasonable policy changes we can all agree on, and those changes will make life easier for families. I have been working on a number of commonsense measures--my Strong Families, Strong Communities plan--to empower working families, increase take-home pay, and ensure flexibility in the workplace. Today I would like to discuss part of that plan. The Strong Families Act is a bipartisan proposal I introduced with Senator King to address the challenge of paid leave. It is no secret that balancing responsibilities at home with duties at work is a common struggle for working parents. For an increasing number of Americans these pressures include raising young children while also caring for aging parents. While I believe we must do more to help these working families, the usual Washington answers of one-size-fits-all Federal mandates and higher taxes are not a part of the solution we are proposing. Instead, I believe we should focus on a more balanced approach that respects both family obligations and the employer's costs of doing business. There are ways to increase the options for working adults without hurting existing employment arrangements or threatening job security. The Family and Medical Leave Act--FMLA--of 1993 requires employers of 50 or more employees to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave, which can be used for events such as the birth or adoption of children, serious medical issues, or providing care to close family members. The problem for many families is that current law does not require paid time off. Unpaid leave is practically impossible for countless Americans, especially hourly workers who live paycheck to paycheck. Many employers voluntarily offer generous compensation packages that include paid parental or medical leave. A survey of more than 1,100 employers found that 68 percent of large employers provide paid parental leave. At the same time not all workers enjoy these options despite increasingly complex family demands. Again, this is especially true for low-wage workers. With more than half of women working as the primary breadwinners, workplace flexibility has become a necessity for our 21st-century families. It is not just children who require personal care and attention; it is also our aging parents. Nearly half of middle-aged adults have elderly parents, and they are still supporting their own children. Over 43 million Americans provide direct care to older family members, with women serving as 66 percent of all primary caregivers. As the baby boomer generation ages, the number of senior citizens requiring care will likely spike. Less take-home pay for these caregivers means tighter finances, more stress, and lost opportunities--all at a time when families are confronting health crises or dealing with unique challenges of starting a new family. With such events often coinciding with high medical bills, the last thing a stressed family needs is a smaller working budget. Senator King and I have offered a proposal that would enable working families to have continued access to pay while they are meeting necessary family obligations. Our plan would create a tax credit to encourage employers to voluntarily offer paid leave for workers. To be eligible for that tax credit, the employer must at a minimum offer 4 weeks of paid leave, but they could offer more. Paid leave would be available on an hourly basis and would be separate from the other vacation or sick leave. For each hour of paid leave provided, the employer would receive a 25-percent nonrefundable tax credit. The more pay the employer offers, the greater the tax credit. This tax credit will be available to any employer with qualified employees regardless of size. Importantly, our bill is reasonable. It is a balanced solution that can make a real difference in the lives of working families. When we do this without new mandates or new taxes, it creates an incentive structure to encourage employers to offer that paid leave, specifically targeting those who hire lower income hourly paid workers. This should not be just another election-year issue. This is a middle- class issue and our bill takes the partisan politics out of it and offers a meaningful solution we can pass. I wish to thank my friend from Maine, Senator King, who joined me in offering this bill. Once again, this now famous surf-and-turf caucus is working together on a commonsense proposal, and it is a proposal that can help American families. I am grateful for the Senator's input, his hard work and friendship, and I look forward to closely working with him in the future so we can advance this measure in the Senate. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Ms. FISCHER

Ms. FISCHER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life and sacrifice of U.S. Army SSG Benjamin G. Prange, who was killed in action on July 24 while serving in Kandahar Province in Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Prange ``Ben'' to his friends and family--was a soldier in the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, CO. He repeatedly answered the call to deploy, serving three tours in Afghanistan in 6 years. Ben was born and raised in rural Nebraska south of Lincoln, near Hickman and Roca. He was no stranger to adversity early in life, overcoming the deaths of both of his parents before he turned 16. He was raised by his grandparents, Kent and Carolyn Prange, who live just west of Roca, NE. Ben attended Norris High School, where he met his future wife Elizabeth. Ben is remembered as a ``good, solid kid'' by his high school superintendent Roy Baker. Liz and Ben married a year after his graduation. They would have celebrated their 11th wedding anniversary on July 26. He enlisted in the Army in January 2007 to fulfill a dream of becoming an infantryman. Liz is left to care for their two sons, Corbin and Dillon, who I hope will understand in time the tremendous debt of gratitude this Nation owes to their father for selfless sacrifice to protect all that we hold dear. Ben served our country with distinction. He was a four time recipient of the Army Commendation Medal and a recipient of the Combat Infantryman Badge for service under direct enemy fire. He was also awarded an Army Achievement Medal, two Good Conduct Medals, a National Defense Service Medal, a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, an Overseas Service Ribbon, and two NATO Medals, in addition to his Afghanistan Campaign Medal with three campaign stars for his tours of duty. My thoughts and prayers remain with his family, friends, and his fellow soldiers who have lost a great father, soldier, and friend. His sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to set the record straight. Since the Supreme Court ruled on the Hobby Lobby case, a flood of misinformation has spread, distorting the true meaning of the Court's decision. We have seen a misrepresentation of the case, I think to divide the American people, and I find these scare tactics very disappointing. It is time to move away from the overheated rhetoric and it is time for us to discuss the facts. The Washington Post Fact Checker has systematically rebutted a series of misleading claims from my friends on the other side of the aisle. The Fact Checker concluded that, ``Simply put, the court ruling does not outlaw contraceptives, does not allow bosses to prevent women from seeking birth control and does not take away a person's religious freedom.'' In other words, under this ruling, no boss has the right to tell an employee that they cannot use birth control. Nothing in the decision, nothing takes away women's access to birth control. All women continue to hold the constitutional right that was first articulated in Griswold v. Connecticut to use contraceptives. The Court's Hobby Lobby opinion reaffirms Griswold and unequivocally states, ``under our cases, women (and men) have a constitutional right to obtain contraceptives.'' Discrimination based on gender continues to be illegal. Employers may not punish, retaliate, or discriminate against women who choose to use contraception. Moreover, current privacy laws prevent employers from even asking if an employee uses birth control. The Court went on to state that its decision ``provides no such shield'' against discrimination in hiring. An employer cannot prohibit a woman from purchasing any form of contraception. Moreover, women can continue to have broad access to safe, affordable birth control. Even before the Affordable Care Act was passed, 28 States already had laws or regulations on the books to provide for contraceptive coverage. Over 85 percent of large businesses provide contraceptive coverage for their employees. For women without such coverage, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services administers five separate programs to ensure affordable access to contraception, including Medicaid. The bottom line: All women continue to have the ability to purchase or use a wide variety of contraceptives. It is both possible to stand tall for the principle of religious freedom and also to support safe access to birth control. The two are not mutually exclusive. The issue in Hobby Lobby is not whether women can purchase birth control, it is who pays for what. Those of us who believe that life begins at conception have moral objections to devices or procedures that destroy fertilized embryos. The Green family, the owners of Hobby Lobby, have similar objections. They do not want to use their money to violate their religious beliefs. I think most Americans would believe that is reasonable. In fact, the Greens offered health coverage that pays for 16 out of 20 forms of contraception, including birth control pills. The Court narrowly ruled that the Green family's decision was protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a bill led by Democrats and passed with overwhelming support by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The bill requires the government to show a high level of proof before it can interfere with the free exercise of religion. The Court ruled that in this case the government failed to meet that burden. Accordingly, it could not abridge the Green family's legitimate religious views. While not all Americans share these particular views, I do believe all Americans understand the importance of preserving religious liberty. Indeed, our Nation was largely founded by men and women seeking that religious freedom. The Court's decision was a narrow one, applying only to closely held, mostly family-owned companies. Some have suggested the ruling could open the door to objections over blood transfusions or vaccines. We heard similar fears when the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed over 20 years ago. None of those fears have been realized. Finally, I would like to state my strong support for the legislation I introduced with Senator Kelly Ayotte and Senator Mitch McConnell that reaffirms the dual principles of religious freedom and safe access to contraception for all women. Rather than seeking to divide Americans, our legislation brings people together around ideas that we all can support. I would especially like to commend Senator Ayotte for her strong leadership on this issue. I have enjoyed working with her to push back against those misleading claims about the Hobby Lobby ruling and ensuring that women across America know the truth. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise to give voice to the thousands of Nebraskans who have contacted my office and continue to contact my office with their concerns about health care. In 2009 the President made all the Americans a promise. He said: No matter how we reform health care, we will make this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. Five years later, it is becoming clear that the President's assurance won't hold true. Many of the millions of Americans who were forced to sign up for ObamaCare-approved health plans are now having trouble finding a doctor or hospital they like that will accept their new insurance. On May 12 the New York Times reported: In the midst of all the turmoil in health care these days, one thing is becoming clear: No matter what kind of health plan consumers choose, they will find fewer doctors and hospitals in their network--or pay much more for the privilege of going to any provider they want. Despite higher rates, new ObamaCare plans include fewer in-network doctors and hospitals than the older health care plans. This diminished access to health care is a serious problem for Americans who live in rural areas with fewer primary care physicians, forcing some people to drive hours just to see a doctor who will accept their insurance. I have received letters, emails, and phone calls from over 18,000 Nebraskans who keep saying the same thing: The promises of ObamaCare are not being kept. For example, Karen and her husband from Kearney essentially lost the doctors they had and liked when they received a notice in the mail indicating that the health care providers they have relied on for years will no longer accept this new insurance. Here is another example my office received. Douglas, another constituent from Kearney, wrote: ObamaCare has done one thing, and one thing only, it has threatened my wife and the life of my son. He goes on to say: Because of age, and the ACA, my son's doctors retired or quit practicing, and also because of my son becoming an adult, we had to find new doctors. We haven't been denied insurance, but we have been denied doctors. We ended up begging and pleading with doctors to care for my son. [We were] turned down by nine or ten. I offered a commonsense proposal called the FAIR Act. It would delay the tax on the uninsured anytime the employer mandate is delayed. ObamaCare is picking winners and losers. The big and powerful get help while the vast majority of Nebraskans and millions of Americans are left behind. My bill will level the playing field, giving all Americans that ``fair shot.'' I hope we have the opportunity to debate and vote on my commonsense bill here in the Senate. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.