Mike Johanns

Mr. JOHANNS

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I rise today, first of all, to say thank you to Senator Barrasso and Senator Alexander for speaking so forcefully on this issue. All of us in this body are elected officials and we take an oath. In that oath, we raise our right hand and we promise our Nation that we will uphold the Constitution of the United States, this very sacred document that has so soundly guided our great country from one decade to another, one century to another, one generation to another. In fact, many of my colleagues in Congress took that oath earlier this month. Just 10 days ago, President Obama took the Presidential oath of office with great pomp and circumstance. We were all on the platform with him. He promised the Nation that he would preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States. But I fear that now what we are seeing is a flaunting of that very document. You see, the DC Court of Appeals ruled that the President violated the Constitution with his appointment of three members to the National Labor Relations Board. I read the opinion. I saw no other solution than to ask these individuals to leave. The truth of the matter is they are not constitutionally there and need to leave. This request was not about a personal preference or an attitude about any one individual. It was not about their qualifications. It was about the oath of office we take. And that oath of office says we will uphold the Constitution. The NLRB appointments were unconstitutional because the President only has the power to bypass our advice-and-consent role here in the Senate under the language of the Constitution. The court unequivocally found that the appointments were made last January while the Senate was not in recess, and were therefore void. Therefore, the President could not use the recess appointments clause of the Constitution to appoint these individuals. The ruling correctly concludes: ``Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers.'' The separation of powers is a critical safeguard to ensure that one branch of government does not overstep the other. The court goes on to say that allowing these nominations to stand ``would wholly defeat the purpose of the Framers in the careful separation of powers.'' Additionally, because these appointments were unconstitutional, the board lacked the quorum necessary to make decisions over the past year. This calls into question over 200 rulings of the board since last January. I personally believe that there is no doubt, if they are not constitutionally there, if they are there violating the Constitution, then all of their rulings, all of their regulations, all of their actions as a board are invalid and void. That is why I wrote last Friday to the Government Accountability Office asking them to report to us every single decision they had made that was in excess of their powers to be there. You would think it would be common sense that the board would suspend all further action. You know, as a former member of the Cabinet, it never occurred to me that I had the right to ignore court decisions. I cannot imagine. The Chairman of the NLRB said this, ``The board respectfully disagrees with the decision.'' The Chairman indicates they will continue to conduct business as usual, even though a unanimous appeals court has deemed the appointments of all but one member of the board to be unconstitutional. I find their action absolutely appalling. Decisions by the NLRB are felt across the country. It is not fair for the Board to say to the court: Go pound sand, which is exactly what they are telling this court. It is already awful that 200 litigants now have to go through the time and expense to appeal their rulings. Instead of continuing business as usual and issuing more bogus rulings, the Board should recognize that it is time to leave and to honor the Constitution. I will wrap up with this. The D.C. appeals court ruling was a victory for our system of government. I believe it was a victory for the Constitution. It ensures that no one, including the President of the United States, is above the Constitution. I simply ask the NLRB, its members who were unconstitutionally appointed, to recognize the sanctity of our Constitution and vacate their offices immediately. Leave. Let us in the Senate have the powers granted to us by the U.S. Constitution to offer advice and consent to the President of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHANNS

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

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague Ben Nelson. In fact, when we visited with each other last night, I said to Senator Nelson that I have spent a significant part of my career following jobs he had done. I was the mayor of Lincoln when Ben Nelson was the Governor of Nebraska, I became the Governor of Nebraska as he was completing his two terms, and then I joined him in the U.S. Senate. Before all of that, I worked with Ben as the Secretary of Agriculture. I can say from first-hand experience that Ben Nelson always had the best interests of our State at heart. He was enormously hardworking. In fact, I don't hesitate to admit for a second that when I came to the Governor's office, I found the State to be in excellent shape. He often joked about how he was tighter than three coats of paint, and I think that is absolutely true. He tended to business, balanced the budget, and made sure that money was set aside in the rainy day fund because we in Nebraska know there are going to be days where it might rain. He did a great job as Governor. We worked hand in hand on a number of issues when I was Governor and he was a U.S. Senator. When we became colleagues in the Senate, that working relationship continued. I am very pleased to rise today and say to the people of Nebraska that there was never a time where partisan differences ever impacted or interfered with our ability to work together. Senator Nelson was always looking for a way to move the State forward and move our country forward. I just wanted to come to the floor today and thank my colleague Ben Nelson for his service. We appreciate everything he has done. We wish the Senator the very best, and I have a sense we are going to have an opportunity to work together in future years.

Mr. JOHANNS

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

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, the Founders of this great country clearly wanted the Senate to serve as a deliberative body anchored with the ability to fully amend and to fully debate issues. Yet there has been a lot of talk lately about Senate rules changes to limit Senators' ability to make their voices heard. To many, this may sound like inside baseball, limited to the concerns of just a handful of Senators. But let me assure you this issue is so much more than that. The changes that are being contemplated would significantly impact everyday Americans, especially those who live in rural or less-populated States. Take Nebraska, for example. We do not necessarily consider ourselves small. We have almost 2 million people and several Fortune 500 companies. But we also do not like the idea of getting steamrolled by high-population States; for example, California, New York or Illinois. But that is exactly what these Senate rules changes would allow. This is not just some wild supposition on my part. The majority leader himself said the filibuster ``is a unique privilege that serves to aid small States from being trampled by the desires of larger states.'' He went on to say it is ``one of the most sacred rules of the Senate.'' Of course, that was a few years ago, before he proposed to do the very thing he has criticized. He now appears ready to undermine the most important rule, not by a two-thirds vote, as clearly required by Senate rule XXII, but by a simple majority fiat. This contradicts longstanding practice and disregards the 67-vote threshold President Lyndon Baines Johnson said ``preserves, indisputably, the character of the Senate.'' This is the same so-called nuclear option Democrats previously decried as breaking the rules to change the rules. For example, the senior Senator from New York previously opposed such a blatant power grab saying: The checks and balances that Americans prize are at stake. The idea of bipartisanship, where you have to come together and can't just ram everything through because you have a simple majority, is at stake. The very things we treasure and love about this grand republic are at stake. Those are pretty powerful and unequivocal words, but it does not stop there. The senior Senator from Illinois called it `` . . . attacking the very force within the Senate that creates compromise and bipartisanship.'' So that reflects a trifecta of the Democratic leadership saying it is a bad idea. Yet they keep pushing it like it has somehow magically been transformed into a good idea. But it does not matter how long we polish the tin cup; it will not magically become the golden chalice. Again, you do not have to believe me. One of the Senate's great historians, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia, was very clear on this issue. He said: ``Our Founding Fathers intended the Senate to be a continuing body that allows for open and unlimited debate and the protection of minority rights.'' When faced with the idea of limiting these basic underpinnings of the Senate, he concluded: ``We must never, ever, tear down the only wall-- the necessary fence--this nation has against the excesses of the Executive Branch and the resultant haste and tyranny of the majority.'' I had the great privilege of working with Senator Byrd when I first came to the Senate. We offered an amendment together which would have prevented the majority from stretching the Senate rules to enact Draconian cap-and-trade legislation on a simple majority vote-- interestingly enough, a situation not so different from today's proposals. Senator Byrd was very wise in these matters, serving as his party's leader in both times of majority and minority. He had seen both sides of the fence, if you will. He had studied the Framers and had determined that such a blatant power grab could not stand. In fact, the vast majority of our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, agreed and our amendment passed on a vote of 67 to 31. That is exactly what should happen. If changes are needed, a bipartisan supermajority should approve them, not a simple majority changing the rules to break the rules, not a simple majority steamrolling the Nation. Senator Byrd left no doubt about his opinion of the so-called nuclear option when he implored us: `` . . . jealously guard against efforts to change or reinterpret the Senate rules by a simple majority, circumventing Rule 22 where a two-thirds majority is required.'' He concluded with a statement more eloquent than any original words I might speak. So allow me to once again quote him. I implore my colleagues to listen carefully: . . . the Senate has been the last fortress of minority rights and freedom of speech in the Republic for more than two centuries. I pray that Senators will pause and reflect before ignoring that history and tradition in favor of the political priority of the moment. It is often said those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it. I hope my colleagues will study this history, discover the wisdom of Senator Byrd, and decide to abandon this ill-advised hostile takeover of the Senate, this attempt to put a gag on the minority. One of my favorite statements on this subject from Senator Byrd is: ``. . . before we get all steamed up, demanding radical changes of the Senate rules, let's read the rules.'' Let's do that. Senate rule V clearly states that ``the rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.'' Rule XXII is very clear. It unquestionably says the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting to change the Senate rules. Again, very clearly, this is all about breaking the rules to change the rules. The sad thing for our Senate and our great Nation is that once the bell is rung, it cannot be unrung. Simple majority votes to change our Senate rules, I guarantee you, will become commonplace. Whenever a new party takes control, they will change the rules by a majority vote. Whoever occupies the majority at the moment will then run roughshod over the minority party, the laws they passed when they were in the majority, and their constituents. It is absolutely inevitable. Today's assurances that it only applies to motions to proceed will eventually ring hollow when it extends to judges, to bills, and then to conference reports. There will be nothing to stop it. One day we will awaken with a Senate that basically is the House of Representatives, where majorities rule and only their leadership decides what amendments will be considered and what votes will occur and when they will occur. We will have a legislative branch that does not resemble even faintly what the Framers of our great Constitution envisioned. But maybe, just as important, we would find entire states of constituents who have no voice in the policies that affect their daily lives. That would be a travesty. I implore my colleagues one last time to listen to the wisdom of their leaders of today and throughout our history--people such as our majority leader, who said: ``For more than 200 years the rules of the Senate have protected the American people, and rightfully so,'' and Senator Byrd, who said: ``As long as the Senate retains the power to amend and the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure.'' But, unfortunately, this great institution has evolved into a constant cycle of bringing flawed legislation to the floor, filling the amendment tree to prohibit all amendments, daring the minority party to vote no to protect the rights of their constituents, and when they do so, claim they are filibustering and obstructionist. If we could fix this one basic problem, if we could return the Senate to its most basic principle of open debate and opportunity for amendments, maybe we would realize the folly of these proposed rules changes and we would get back in the business of being Senators again and working together again. This quick fix is not the answer. I hope between now and January cooler heads will prevail, and we will put ourselves back on a path to finding bipartisan solutions to our Nation's most pressing problems. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHANNS. Yes, I will.

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, the Constitution would always trump, but that is a misinterpretation of what we are doing here. Let me play this out, because I am pretty confident I know how this is going to work if this is pursued. What would happen in January is there would be a request for a ruling by the Parliamentarian, and the Parliamentarian would correctly rule that in order to change the rules you need two- thirds of the Senate. Then they would use the procedure of overruling our Parliamentarian with a majority vote. That will then stand as the ruling for the Senate. Very clearly what you are doing is you are skirting both the Constitution and the rules of the Senate. Let me, if I might, take the Senator's question and show the shocking result we are going to end up with. Do you realize there was a day in this body where judges were not filibustered? We can look at Supreme Court judges who might be controversial to one side or the other who were approved by a majority vote. So what happened? My friends on the other side of the aisle sat down, they brought in some constitutional scholar. He said: Well, why are you not filibustering judges? And now it is very routine and very common-- and both sides do it. So here is what is going to happen. Every time you have a majority that comes to power--and we all know the pendulum swings. In our lifetime we will see Republicans returned to the majority. That is how elections go--once this is cracked open, then they as the majority party can come in to change the rules and basically say: It is open season. We will get a ruling from the Parliamentarian just as the Democrats did. We will overrule that ruling of the Parliamentarian by a 51-vote majority or 50, if you have the Vice President in the chair, and then Katy-bar-the-door. All laws passed by that majority are now subject to being repealed by a majority vote. If you can do it on the motion to proceed, there is not any reason you cannot use this very flawed procedure to do it on every other piece and step along the way. That is what Senator Byrd was warning us about. He was basically saying: Members of the Senate, once you crack this door open, there is no turning back. And there will not be any turning back. So what happens to our country? Well, No. 1, the minority becomes powerless in the Senate. As a Member of the minority, I could come down here, I could offer an amendment. I could join forces with Senator Byrd on using reconciliation on climate change, and we could get 67 votes. But all of a sudden what is going to happen here is your minority is going to be basically without a voice in the Senate because the majority rules. That was never intended. That has not been part of our history. So I think to directly answer the question, you are misinterpreting what this is all about. The net effect of where we are going to end up, if we go in this direction, I guarantee you, in our lifetime we will look back at that moment in history and we will say that changed the operation of the Senate forever. As I said in my comments, once the bell is rung, it is impossible to unring the bell. We will not have stability in our laws and we will not have stability in our Senate and we will have a minority that is absolutely powerless. I do not believe that is what was intended. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I come to the floor today in support of approving permanent normal trade relations with Russia. Over the past several years, I have often come to the floor in favor of free-trade agreements and other efforts to expand market access for U.S. exports. This legislation is yet another one of those opportunities. This vote to repeal a 1970s trade law and recognize Russia as a member of the WTO will result in increased export opportunities for U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers. Increased exports lead to increased job creation. Russia is the world's ninth largest economy, with a population of 142 million and a growing middle class. Russia is already a significant trading partner importing over $10 billion annually from the United States. In just a 5-year period, Nebraska's exports to Russia increased fourfold. In fact, in 2011 alone, total exports of goods from Nebraska were valued at $154 million. I believe we have the opportunity to continue this impressive trend by recognizing Russia as a WTO member. A vote in favor of this legislation will level the playing field for U.S. job creators looking to take advantage of these growing export opportunities. This is especially true for Nebraska's equipment and machinery manufacturers. My State has a reputation for producing some of the most sophisticated irrigation equipment in the world. Acknowledging Russia's membership in the WTO will reduce tariffs on this technology from 10 percent to 5 percent--allowing U.S.-based companies to compete more effectively with others around the globe. Additionally, other agriculture equipment and machinery manufacturers in Nebraska and elsewhere will see tariffs reduced or eliminated. Currently, these tariff rates are up to 25 percent. They will eventually drop to an average well below 10 percent when Russia meets all of its WTO commitments. This is a big deal beyond any single state or sector. Total U.S. agricultural exports to Russia are forecast at more than $1.4 billion for 2012, and this further opens the doors of opportunity. Here is another example: As part of the WTO accession process, Russia is required to lower its tariffs on U.S. beef products to 15 percent. Additionally, Russia must allow a greater volume of frozen beef imports. The quota will nearly triple: from approximately 22,000 tons in 2010 to 60,000 tons. Meat production is a big part of our agricultural economy--in my home State and in our country--so this is noteworthy. Now, our agricultural producers will be the first to tell you that they don't think Russia always plays fair in the world of exports. They say Russia sometimes offers unjustifiable reasons to block our products. The fact is, Russia has a less-than-stellar record on establishing predictable, science-based import standards. So our producers have not always had reasonable access to its markets. As Secretary of Agriculture, I relentlessly negotiated with Russia and other trading partners to grant the same access to their markets for our agricultural products as we granted to their products. This seems fair, right? They should offer us the same access we offer them? But based on Russia's track record on U.S. meat exports, especially pork and poultry, I continue to have concerns. That is part of the reason I have decided we should recognize their membership in the WTO. The WTO has been an important tool for the United States to level the playing field for our products in the international trading system. Russia will be obligated to apply international food safety standards. This should mean more certainty and predictable market access for U.S. agricultural products. And these obligations will be enforceable through the use of WTO dispute settlement mechanisms. Integrating Russia into a rules-based trading system and providing the means to enforce those rules will further strengthen the ability of U.S. businesses to export products to Russia. But this is an area where we will need to show great vigilance. As Russia implements its trade commitments, the administration must ensure that Russia does not revert to its old ways on trade. Further delay in repealing Jackson-Vanik would only hurt us. On August 22, Russia formally joined the WTO after a lengthy process. Over 150 other nations have already taken action and are reaping the export benefits. The United States has been left in the dust. Until we act, we cannot enjoy the lowered tariffs, increased market access, dispute settlement process, and other benefits of Russia's membership in the WTO. Thus, we should vote to repeal Jackson-Vanik and accept Russia as a permanent trading partner. The move ensures that American businesses are not disadvantaged and losing market share to their competitors. Russia already has access to the U.S. market, so additional delay on PNTR only hurts our workers and companies. Delaying action will only result in the delay of job creation and more lost opportunities for American manufactures, farmers, and ranchers. Our efficient export system, including handling, processing and distribution of our goods and agricultural products, creates millions of U.S. jobs. At a time when we face some very serious challenges in our country related to debt, deficit, and unemployment, it makes sense to unlock this door of opportunity. Thus, I support removing application of Jackson-Vanik and intend to vote for PNTR with Russia. This status would help to level the playing field for U.S. exporters. I encourage my colleagues to consider the economic impacts of this bill on our Nation's manufactures, farmers, ranchers, and other job creators, and I look forward to voting to support normalizing trade with Russia.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate and commend Matt Williams, a life-long Nebraskan, as he recently began his term as chairman of the American Bankers Association. Mr. Williams is the president and chairman of Gothenburg State Bank, in Gothenburg, NE. Matt has led the bank for 39 years, an institution founded by his great-grandfather. I am fully confident that his strong work ethic, fostered by working summers on the family ranch, and his wealth of knowledge of banking issues will lead him to much success in his new position. An extremely active member of the community, Mr. Williams has taken a personal role in growing the local economy. He has joined forces with other local leaders to promote Gothenburg, a small town of less than 4,000 people which is now home to operations of 4 Fortune 500 companies. Matt's solid understanding of how access to capital can cultivate economic development and job growth will be essential as he promotes the values of the banking community. Matt is also no stranger to advocating on behalf of the banking industry. In 2003 and 2004, he served as chairman of the Nebraska Bankers Association and currently serves on the FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking. The American Bankers Association is fortunate to have someone with Matt Williams' knowledge and leadership skills at the helm. He understands the important role banks can play in an economic recovery. I am confident Matt will tackle the obligations of this new position with the same tenacity that has brought him so much success in his past endeavors. I wish him nothing but the best and look forward to working with him on the issues of the day.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, think about it--$5 trillion of new debt under this President. So when he submits a budget plan, what happens to it? On the floor of this Senate, the President's budget plan did not get a single vote. No Republican, no Democrat, no Independent supported the President. What happened on the House side? The same identical thing--no Republican, no Democrat, no Independent supported the President's plan. Many are working on this. Simpson-Bowles is a good example. Many of my colleagues have been working to find a way forward on our budget issues. And what happens on the floor of the Senate? No budget. Four years, no budget. When Republicans come to the majority, we will pass a budget, we will work to balance our budget. That is where we are headed.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I am here today to recognize two incredible heroes from Blue Hill, NE, for their courageous actions amidst a terrible tragedy. On September 5, an accident between a schoolbus and a semitrailer claimed the lives of four members of this close-knit farming community in Webster County, NE. My thoughts and my prayers continue to be with the victims, their loved ones, and the entire Blue Hill community during this very tragic time. But through the sorrow of this terrible tragedy, a story has emerged that truly epitomizes the word ``hero.'' As one Nebraska newspaper said: By the grace of God, not all of the kids riding the bus home from school [have been] buried. But their fates could have been much different, if not for two guardian angels. There were five other students riding the bus on that day who, because of the selfless actions of two brave men, are still alive today. Ron Meyer and Phil Petr arrived on this horrific scene just moments after the crash. Immediately, the two bravely ran onto the burning bus, risking their own lives to save the lives of others. They swiftly and courageously pulled five children to safety. A nearby rancher who witnessed their actions said he is sure the five survivors would have encountered a much different fate had Ron and Phil not been there that day. They are guardian angels whose heroic actions will never be forgotten. There were other heroes who arrived on the scene and acted quickly to provide care--first responders who also deserve to be commended. First responders risk their lives to save others each and every day, just as our gratitude to them should be expressed throughout the year. But special recognition is owed to average citizens who happen upon horrific scenes and take heroic action. Although Ron and Phil would never ask for it, many in this community have called for their heroism to be recognized and to be honored, and I could not agree more. Their willingness to risk their own lives to save others serves as a source of inspiration for all of us. I am honored to call them my fellow Nebraskans, and I want to personally thank them. I thank them for their courage and their selflessness. Acknowledging their heroism in no way lifts the grief and the sorrow that gripped the community and our State after this crash. I pray that God brings peace and healing to all those who have been affected. But because of Ron and Phil, my prayer is also a prayer of gratitude. I thank God for these heroes. I know that no recognition can adequately convey the gratitude felt by the families of the five children whom they saved from that burning bus. Mr. President, I stand before you today on behalf of the Blue Hill community and all of my fellow Nebraskans to offer my deepest appreciation to Ron Meyer and Phil Petr. May God bless them and God bless all those affected by this terrible crash. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a remarkable foster couple from Harrisburg, NE, whom I recently nominated to be 2012 `Angels in Adoption' recipients. Dave and Laura Whelchel are the parents of two grown biological children, Chance and Jenna, as well as four adopted children, Reuben, Josefina, Arielle and San Juan, who are siblings. They are hoping to finalize the adoption of a fifth sibling, Kayleigh, by the end of the year. Each of the adopted children has come into their home with special physical, occupational or speech therapy needs. Dave and Laura's dedication to providing these children with the love and support they need is incredible. As I witnessed firsthand during a visit to their family farm in August, the Whelchels are doing an outstanding job ensuring their children are able to live full and happy lives. But the Whelchels' kindness and compassion does not stop with their children. Three years ago, the couple created Camp Grace, a summer camp for other children with special needs. Held monthly at the Whelchel farm, the camp is designed to help children work toward specific therapy goals. They also donate countless hours of their time coordinating with volunteers, therapists, and other families to ensure the camp's success. It is an honor to nominate Dave and Laura as `Angels in Adoption'. The award, which honors those who have enriched the lives of foster and adopted children in the U.S., is a small token of appreciation for the love and compassion they have shown their children over the years. I could not think of a more deserving family for this award. My hope is that more families will follow the wonderful example set by the Whelchels by providing loving homes to deserving children.

Mr. JOHANNS

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

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss an issue I have brought up before in the Senate that continues to trouble me. Whenever I meet with farmers and ranchers in Nebraska, they often raise concerns about regulatory overreach. I hear about the need for agencies such as the EPA to provide a more predictable and commonsense regulatory environment. So today I am introducing a bill that will do exactly that. It stops the EPA's use of aerial surveillance of agricultural operations for a period of 12 months--1 year. Earlier this year, I began hearing about this issue from constituents who are worried about privacy concerns. Thus, a few of my colleagues and I wrote to Administrator Jackson in late May asking her several questions about EPA's practice of flying over livestock operations and taking pictures. We were curious about the scope of flights over agriculture operations in Nebraska and around the country. We asked how the agency selects targets for surveillance and whether any images of residences, land, or buildings not subject to EPA regulation were being captured. Additionally, we asked a very fair question: We asked about the use of the images, where are they stored, how are they used, who are they shared with, and how long they would remain on file--all seemingly straightforward, fair, basic questions. Well, to say the least, EPA has been less than forthcoming about the use of aerial surveillance. EPA has acknowledged aerial surveillance activities in Nebraska, Iowa, and West Virginia. But despite repeated requests, details concerning the national scope of this program and its management by EPA headquarters have not been disclosed. You see, I believe the American public deserves open, straightforward, honest information about why EPA is flying over their land--not just in Nebraska but across the country. Time and time again, farmers have consistently proven they are excellent stewards of the environment. They make their living from the land, and they are very mindful of maintaining it and protecting it and leaving it improved. I agree wholeheartedly that we should ensure our waterways are clean and our air is safe. So I want to be very clear: This legislation does not affect EPA's ability to use traditional onsite inspections. But given EPA's track record of ignorance about agriculture, if not downright contempt for it, farmers and ranchers do not trust this agency, and they sure as heck do not approve of EPA doing low-altitude surveillance flights over citizens' private property. So until EPA takes a more commonsense, transparent, open approach, we need to step on the brakes. This bill simply does that. It places a 1- year moratorium on EPA from using aerial surveillance. This will give the agency time to come clean about its activities nationwide and make the case that these flights are an appropriate use of agency authority and taxpayer money. Unless the EPA does that openly, the level of trust between farmers and ranchers and the EPA will continue to erode. In the meantime, passage of this legislation will help provide our farmers and our ranchers and others in rural America with much needed regulatory certainty. I offered an amendment on this issue during the recent farm bill debate. It got broad bipartisan support--56 votes. Ten of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle joined me in this effort, so it is not a partisan issue. I urge my colleagues to continue their support of this effort to bring accountability and transparency to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss an issue I have brought up before in the Senate that continues to trouble me. Whenever I meet with farmers and ranchers in Nebraska, they often raise concerns about regulatory overreach. I hear about the need for agencies such as the EPA to provide a more predictable and commonsense regulatory environment. So today I am introducing a bill that will do exactly that. It stops the EPA's use of aerial surveillance of agricultural operations for a period of 12 months--1 year. Earlier this year, I began hearing about this issue from constituents who are worried about privacy concerns. Thus, a few of my colleagues and I wrote to Administrator Jackson in late May asking her several questions about EPA's practice of flying over livestock operations and taking pictures. We were curious about the scope of flights over agriculture operations in Nebraska and around the country. We asked how the agency selects targets for surveillance and whether any images of residences, land, or buildings not subject to EPA regulation were being captured. Additionally, we asked a very fair question: We asked about the use of the images, where are they stored, how are they used, who are they shared with, and how long they would remain on file--all seemingly straightforward, fair, basic questions. Well, to say the least, EPA has been less than forthcoming about the use of aerial surveillance. EPA has acknowledged aerial surveillance activities in Nebraska, Iowa, and West Virginia. But despite repeated requests, details concerning the national scope of this program and its management by EPA headquarters have not been disclosed. You see, I believe the American public deserves open, straightforward, honest information about why EPA is flying over their land--not just in Nebraska but across the country. Time and time again, farmers have consistently proven they are excellent stewards of the environment. They make their living from the land, and they are very mindful of maintaining it and protecting it and leaving it improved. I agree wholeheartedly that we should ensure our waterways are clean and our air is safe. So I want to be very clear: This legislation does not affect EPA's ability to use traditional onsite inspections. But given EPA's track record of ignorance about agriculture, if not downright contempt for it, farmers and ranchers do not trust this agency, and they sure as heck do not approve of EPA doing low-altitude surveillance flights over citizens' private property. So until EPA takes a more commonsense, transparent, open approach, we need to step on the brakes. This bill simply does that. It places a 1- year moratorium on EPA from using aerial surveillance. This will give the agency time to come clean about its activities nationwide and make the case that these flights are an appropriate use of agency authority and taxpayer money. Unless the EPA does that openly, the level of trust between farmers and ranchers and the EPA will continue to erode. In the meantime, passage of this legislation will help provide our farmers and our ranchers and others in rural America with much needed regulatory certainty. I offered an amendment on this issue during the recent farm bill debate. It got broad bipartisan support--56 votes. Ten of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle joined me in this effort, so it is not a partisan issue. I urge my colleagues to continue their support of this effort to bring accountability and transparency to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. JOHANNS

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

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss a wholly predictable and foreseeable economic disaster. I ask why the Senate continues to waste valuable time while we continue barrelling toward a fiscal cliff. In a little more than 5 months, the current tax rates are scheduled to expire for every single American, resulting in the largest tax increase in history. It is hard to imagine this massive tax increase is what the President wants. Just 2 years ago, he warned that we absolutely should not raise taxes in a poor economy. Yet today the economy is actually in worse shape. So what does the President do? He calls for raising taxes on job creators, on small business owners filing as individuals, on investment income, on all those things that actually drive economic prosperity and hiring. Their favorite talking point claims that all those making more than $250,000 should just be taxed more. While those families reporting income of more than $250,000 may only make up about 2 percent of all tax returns, it is these citizens who are the owners of small businesses that employ 25 percent of America's workforce. These are the same small business owners that created two-thirds of the net jobs in the last decade. I hear from small business owners in Nebraska every day, and they tell me if faced with a more expensive tax bill, they will be forced to cut costs elsewhere. In fact, according to the global accounting firm Ernst & Young, the Democrats' tax plan would result in 710,000 fewer jobs compared to simply keeping the current rate the same for all Americans. The economic wreckage resulting from the tax hike doesn't stop there. In the same study, Ernst & Young estimates these reckless policies will drive wages of hardworking Americans down by 1.8 percent. Furthermore, investment is estimated to decrease 2.4 percent as the tax on dividends increases. Well, what is apparent here? What is apparent is that less investment means less economic activity, which means fewer jobs, and it is really that straightforward. It is really that simple. The President and the Senate Democrats apparently disagree over just how much to increase our taxes on dividend income. It is one of the few areas where their plans are not in lockstep, but both plans increase the dividend tax rate nonetheless. While their rhetoric continues to lambaste the ultrawealthy, make no mistake, this tax increase will affect the vast majority of the middle class. When examining historical IRS data, it is revealed that 68 percent of all tax returns showing dividend income are from those Americans with incomes below $100,000. While adding insult to injury, the President has proposed to increase taxes on the estate of deceased loved ones as well. My friends on the other side of the aisle not only pick up the President's proposal but they make it worse. Believe it or not, they want to tax even more estates at even higher rates than the President. It is astonishing, and unfortunately this reversal on the death tax will disproportionately impact agricultural States such as Nebraska. In their opposition to the Democratic bill, the Nebraska Farm Bureau and the Nebraska Cattlemen state that allowing the estate tax exemption to fall to $1 million would subject the typical full-time farm or ranch to the increased estate tax rate of--get this--55 percent. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters from these two groups be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHANNS. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Senate Democrats' estate tax plan would hit over 48,000 estates with a $40.5 billion tax bill compared to an extension of the current rates. While an extension of current estate tax rates is not perfect--I believe it should be repealed permanently--it is far better than putting over 48,000 families, a large percent of them farmers and ranchers on the death tax rolls. I have said over and over again that death should not be a taxable event. Families should not have to sell the family business and lay off their employees to pay Uncle Sam a 55-percent tax rate on the value of the estate. All of these ill-advised tax policies taken together add up to bad news for our economy and our country, bad news for our workers, and bad news for every American. The National Federation of Independent Business estimates that the tax increases would result in a U.S. economy that is 1.3 percent smaller than it is today, and that is an outcome for which none of us should strive. So what is the alternative? Just last week the senior Senator from Washington laid out the Democrats' plan if they don't get their way on raising taxes: Hold the economy hostage and go over the fiscal cliff; make sure everybody's taxes go up by the largest amount in the Nation's history; let the $110 billion sequester for this year strip our military of the resources it needs to keep us safe and impact domestic programs; let the alternative minimum tax wreak havoc on our middle class, with the exemption actually falling below the median household income. In Nebraska alone, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates for 2012 there will be over 134,000 potential AMT tax returns compared to 16,000 in 2009. All told, this fiscal cliff will cost us between 3 percent and 5 percent of our entire gross domestic product, trillions of dollars in destroyed wealth, and a CBO-predicted economic recession. That is the plan, and it is astonishing to me that the Democrats would go to these lengths just to raise taxes on our country's economic engine. My friends on the other side of the aisle will claim that taxes must be raised to address the mammoth deficit. Make no mistake, attacking our deficit should be job No. 1. However, on actual analysis we see that the Democrats' claim is nothing but a mirage. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the difference between the Democrats' plan to increase taxes and a simple extension of all the current tax rates is not even enough to cover 5 days of our government spending. It is only three-tenths of 1 percent of our crushing $16 trillion national debt. This simply is not about our national debt or about deficits; it is about an ideological statement and nothing more. After today's failed vote on these tax increases, it is my hope that we can get together and practice some common sense. Common sense would tell me, let's not raise taxes in a struggling economy. That used to be the President's position before he was up for reelection. Let's not punish our job creators and small business owners, let's not punish our senior citizens and other savers who rely on dividend income, and let's not hinder passing down family farms and ranches from one generation to the next. Let's extend the current rates for as long as it takes to get to work on comprehensive tax reform and actually solve the problems of our Tax Code. Let's get serious and start working on the business that Americans sent us here to do. A massive tax increase will drive our economy to its knees and bring about another recession. We can't afford that. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I am here to make another statement, but I do want to associate myself with what the two Senators had to say, the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Tennessee. I look at our assignment between now and the end of the year, and we have some monumental issues to tackle. In fact, they are so monumental that many are referring to the work that needs to be done as a fiscal cliff. Some are talking in the vein that we are going to cause another recession unless we come to grips with these issues. I look at this week and so many weeks that have passed this year and nothing has been done. I am going to guess when this week is all said and done, we will probably take three votes. That seems unbelievable for the Senate. It doesn't have to be this way at all. We could be addressing the important issues that face our Nation. There isn't any reason we should not be addressing those issues. Let's debate bills, vote on them, and do the right thing for our country. I thank the two Senators for their comments and I am pleased to be able to associate myself. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a fallen hero, U.S. Marine Corps LCpl Hunter H.D. Hogan. Lance Corporal Hogan was killed in action while supporting combat operations in Afghanistan on June 23, 2012. Lance Corporal Hogan cultivated a desire to serve our Nation at an early age, and he followed in his father's footsteps when he enlisted in the Marine Corps on October 26, 2009. He, like so many young marines, could have pursued other opportunities outside of the military, but he instead chose to take an oath of service to our great country. He was rightfully proud of this oath and remained faithful to the mission and to his brothers in arms. The Hogan family laid their marine to rest in York, NE, on July 6, 2012. Lance Corporal Hogan served with honor and valor having been awarded the Purple Heart, Combat Action Ribbon, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal. Hunter is mourned by his wife Brittney, his father, mother, grandparents, and so many others. I know his family is proud of him and will always remember his spirit and his quick wit. His sense of adventure and his enthusiasm for rodeo, hunting, and fishing will also be fondly remembered. Hunter's passion for life and those around him allowed him to be the best marine he could be. Strong marines are not possible without the support of family. Hunter's family chose a quote by Senator Paul H. Douglas to describe their young marine's passion for the Corps. Those of us who have had the privilege of serving in the Marine Corps value our experience as among the most precious of our lives. The fellowship of shared hardships and dangers in worthy cause creates a close bond of comradeship. It is the basic reason for the cohesiveness of Marines and for the pride we have in our Corps and our loyalty to each other. We hold our heads high when we speak of the strong tradition of military service in our great State of Nebraska. We are honored to call him one of our own, and I know Nebraskans across the State will provide his family with care and love during this very difficult time. May God bless the Hogan family and all of our service men and women both home and abroad. LCpl Hunter Hogan, forever a marine, forever a cowboy, Semper Fidelis.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, today marks one of the most historic and certainly highly anticipated Supreme Court decisions in a long time. I would be less than candid if I didn't say I am enormously disappointed that the Court upheld the law in its individual mandate which requires all Americans to purchase government-approved insurance whether they choose to or don't choose to. I believe it is fundamentally wrong for the U.S. Government to intervene in the lives of Americans in this very direct way. However, the Supreme Court's role within our system of government is to interpret the Constitution, and they have spoken. So with the ruling now officially out, what is important is where we go from here. The Court did not decide that this law is good policy. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts went out of his way to clarify this point. It is clear in my mind that we must do everything we can to repeal this flawed law because it is enormously bad policy. While we have waited over 2 years for the final decision about this law's constitutionality, we haven't had to wait that long to learn why the law is bad for America. The law was a train wreck from the very beginning: backroom deals, empty promises, political tactics that epitomize what disgusts Americans about their government. Some of the law's leading supporters even admitted they hadn't read the 2,700-page bill. The Speaker acknowledged we are going to have to pass the law to see what is in it. My colleagues across the aisle hastily passed the bill on the notion that there were some gold nuggets in there, tucked inside the law, and that maybe Americans would think they were lucky enough to cash in. We have come to know nothing could be further from the truth. After more than 2 years, there has been a lot of rain but not a single rainbow and certainly no pot of gold when it comes to this legislation. Instead, what we have seen is one broken promise after another. Just last week, the administration's own Medicare Actuary reported national health care spending will increase at an average of more than 50 percent over the next decade. The same study estimated, in 2014, the increase in private health insurance premiums is expected to accelerate to 7.9 percent. But the startling fact is that is more than twice the increase Americans would have faced in the absence of the health care law. This is just one of many studies that indicate the law does not bend the cost curve down as the President promised. It begs the basic question: Why would Congress pass a massive overhaul of our country's health care system that actually increases the cost of care? It is so ironic that the majority decided to call this health care law the Affordable Care Act. One can hardly argue that more people will receive better care under a plan that drives costs upward as well as puts Medicare on an unsustainable path. The Medicare Actuary asserted in the most recent trustees report that the law could lead to significant access issues for beneficiaries under Medicare, and Medicare itself is estimated to be insolvent by 2024. Due to the cuts to Medicare and the health care law, he said: ``The prices paid by Medicare for health services are very likely to fall increasingly short of the cost of providing those services.'' He goes on to say: ``Severe problems with beneficiary access to care'' will occur. That is just another way of saying, to put it very directly and simply, our seniors are going to find it harder and harder to find a doctor or a hospital that will accept them as patients. To put it simply, our seniors are going to have difficulty accessing medical care under this law. The health care law perpetuates the problems within this very difficult system. It is clear that heavy-handed government solutions are not the answer, but that is exactly what this law creates. In this law, there are 159 new boards, over 13,000 pages of new regulations, and it gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services more than 1,700 new or expanded powers. No one will convince me this act isn't a seizure of our government, of our health care system, and putting it under the power of government. Americans don't want government bureaucrats diagnosing and prescribing their care. They want the freedom to choose an insurance plan that covers their needs and to simply see the doctor of their choice. It seems the President even manipulated this sentiment, which is why he said no fewer than 47 different times: ``If you like your plan, you can keep it.'' He knew that pledge would help him gain support for his law, but, sadly, the American public was misled and his promise can't be kept. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates up to 20 million Americans could lose the insurance they get through work--the insurance they like and want to keep--because of this health care law. Families in 17 States, including my own State of Nebraska, no longer have access to child-only health insurance because of the mandates in this misguided legislation. That is not the only way the law will hurt hard-working American families. The Director of the CBO testified that the new law will mean 800,000 fewer jobs over the next decade. The American people deserve more than a laundry list of flawed policies and empty pledges. Americans deserve step-by-step reform instead of rushed policy; transparent reforms, not a 2,700-page entangled mess; and an open debate, not a closed-door discussion and the backroom deals that were so necessary to get this flawed piece of legislation passed. More than anything, they deserve sound policy that delivers on the promises. I will do everything I can to continue to push to repeal this misguided law and to push for policies that set us on the right course because the path we pave will define our future as a nation. There is no disputing that Medicare and Medicaid are two of the biggest drivers of our Nation's $15 trillion debt. So if we want to secure a sound future for our children and our grandchildren, we have to fundamentally reform these government programs, not double down on policies that will bankrupt them. In that same vein, we can't ignore our struggling economy. Instead, we need policies that promote business growth and job creation. I believe we can pass step-by-step reforms that confront these tough issues and policies that depart from a top-down, one-size- fits-all approach. The issue of health care touches all of us at the deepest level. Whether it is a new life entering into our world, a tough diagnosis, a lifesaving surgery or care for a loved one in their final days, health care decisions should not be dictated by Washington. Families and the physician they trust need to be at the heart of the decisions that impact their health. The Supreme Court has spoken definitively about the constitutionality of this law, but Americans have spoken loudly and clearly when it comes to the sensibility of this process and of this policy. It is time to repeal it and put in place sensible reforms that truly do bring down costs. I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.