Mike Johanns

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, I come to the floor today to talk about an issue of paramount importance to our country--the issue of religious freedom. Our great Nation was founded on religious freedom. This liberty is at the very core of our government. It has been a significant part of our heritage since this land was first settled, and it is a freedom that sets us apart from many countries around the globe. The Framers of our Constitution rightfully recognized an individual's religious liberty and conscience is above any regulation, any legislation. One of the chief authors of that guiding document, James Madison, declared: Conscience is the most sacred of all property. Thomas Jefferson said: No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority. These fundamental values are a part of the fabric of this great Nation. It is no coincidence it is the first freedom in the Bill of Rights. It is a core value. It is an inalienable right. So that means, as public servants, it is our utmost duty to protect this American freedom. When I was sworn in as a Senator, I--as my colleagues did--took an oath to uphold the Constitution. We all believe strongly in that oath. I take seriously my commitment to uphold the values and the freedoms our forefathers fought to establish and that generations of heroes have died defending. That is why today I am devastated to see this very freedom, the heart of our Constitution, being so completely ignored. The President has taken an unprecedented step in the wrong direction, grossly misusing authority to implement the new health care law. This administration has refused to exempt religious institutions that serve the public good from mandates of the law that go against their strong beliefs and their values, and the values of our Nation. Last August, in an interim final rule, the Department of Health and Human Services announced what free preventive services all new health insurance plans would be required to provide under the law, and that those services must include contraceptives and controversial drugs, such as the so-called morning-after pill. With that mandate, the agency included a supposed religious exemption but, upon reading that, it was clear that was simply unacceptable. It is so narrow that the vast majority of religious hospitals and universities, businesses, social services, and charities are still, very clearly, required by law to comply with the mandate. Many of these organizations have strong faith-based missions and deeply held convictions. Yet they don't fall under the exemption. In other words, their government is compelling Americans to act against their constitutionally protected moral and religious convictions. Since that announcement, hundreds of religious organizations have raised their voices, and I have heard from countless Nebraskans. I held a roundtable back in Nebraska where this was the topic of discussion. Twenty-six of my colleagues joined Senator Hatch and me in sending a letter to the administration condemning this sweeping mandate. We asked them to redraft the regulation so it is consistent with longstanding constitutional principles. Despite these strong efforts, just recently we learned that our passionate concerns had been dismissed. Very disappointingly, the administration has announced that they will move forward with the August interim rule. Under the guise of compromise, they announced that religious organizations would have an additional year before the mandate was enforced; in other words, after election day. The head of the Diocese of Lincoln, a man I have great admiration for, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, called the administration's extension an ``act of mockery.'' Americans are not fooled by this nonsensical extension. The issue is not that religious groups have time to comply. That is not the issue. It is that they are being forced to provide coverage that goes against their conscience, their religious beliefs, their moral beliefs. Bishop Bruskewitz went on to warn ``our American religious liberty is in grave jeopardy.'' The bottom line is that by issuing this decision, this administration has ignored the most sacred of all American freedoms. Just a week before this announcement, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the core constitutional principle of religious liberty in its Hosanna-Tabor decision. The court held that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose their leaders without government interference. Yet the administration has clearly come out on the other side of our Constitution. During the health care debate, we heard something vastly different. The President repeatedly promised the opposite. He pledged that the new health care law would not weaken long-held life and conscience protections. In his public statements about the health overhaul, he vowed ``Federal conscience laws would remain in place.'' He even issued an Executive order where he stated that ``longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience will remain intact.'' Many of us--myself included--during the health care debate warned that the Executive order was just window dressing to get votes and would do nothing to protect life in matters of conscience. While supporters of the bill echoed the President's promise, I spoke on the Senate floor--once in November and again in March--warning Americans that they should not be fooled by hollow promises, and I urged my pro-life colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous policy. Two years after the law's passage, the truth behind the administration's priorities has been revealed. The President has, regrettably, punted the implementation of this controversial mandate until after the election. So now many religious organizations are forced to face two options: act against their convictions or drop health care coverage altogether. This decision comes from an administration that granted over 1,700 health plans with waivers from the law's major provisions, many of those to unions. A total of 4 million people, including select businesses and unions, have benefited from the waiver process. The administration has gone out of its way to guide its friends around the onerous mandates of this flawed policy. Yet this same administration is unwilling to protect a fundamental constitutional freedom by simply crafting a reasonable exemption for religious organizations. Would Presidents Thomas Jefferson or James Madison have forced vast swaths of society to take action against their conscience? The answer is a resounding and obvious no. This political posturing is obvious, and it is appalling. This political maneuvering comes at a heavy cost for many Americans; it is a breach of values and beliefs. It runs counter to the very core of our identity as Americans. Never before has the Federal Government required that individuals provide a product that violates their conscience. Many Americans are questioning what will come next. They recognize that other strongly held beliefs could also be compromised. I am not alone in being deeply troubled by this administration's complete disregard of the liberties in our Constitution. It is these liberties that make our country great. I am a cosponsor of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act introduced by my colleague Senator Blunt. This legislation would reverse the administration's massive overstep and ensure that all conscience rights are protected. I will do everything in my power to push this to a vote. We must act to right this wrong. We must ensure that America's values are not compromised. We must protect religious liberty. We all took an oath to do so. I am confident that, with prayer and persistence, we can reverse this course. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments that have been offered by my colleagues from South Dakota and North Dakota. They absolutely have it right in terms of the importance of constructing this pipeline. There is no question that we are in a dire situation in this Nation. We need the jobs, we need the oil, and this pipeline can take a significant step forward in both regards. I think the pipeline will be a huge help in those areas. But let me start by noting that I was a cosponsor of the first Keystone bill. I am also a cosponsor of the bill that Senators Hoeven, Lugar, and Vitter introduced just this past Monday, the bill we are talking about today. Here is a very important point for my State. In both cases, and specifically in reference to this bill, the effort was specifically crafted to safeguard the route selection process that is occurring in Nebraska. I thank my colleagues for recognizing that work and recognizing that Nebraska has a process that will near completion this August or September. They have worked very hard to take into account our issues, and their bill recognizes that the Nebraska effort will continue. They decided in our State--the Governor, the legislature, and TransCanada--to work on an alternative to the proposed route. Recognition occurred that the route through Nebraska involved some very sensitive land--the Sand Hills--and a very sensitive water supply--the Ogallala aquifer. The Governor called a special session, and, as we do in Nebraska, everybody sat down and said: How do we solve this problem? So they came to an agreement that the best way to solve the problem was to do an environmental impact statement, which will be no cost to the Federal Government. It will be paid for by Nebraskans. That was part of the provision of this agreement. And TransCanada agreed they would work to reroute the pipeline through our State. Everybody shook hands. We are now in agreement. Our problem is solved in Nebraska. For months and months, the Federal Government has been saying to the State of Nebraska: You have the power to route this pipeline through your State. And that is exactly what we are doing. So this legislation recognizes that agreement and says: Great, we are going to allow Nebraska to move forward. But very wisely this legislation also recognizes there is no need whatsoever for any delay on the remainder of this pipeline. This was the only segment--and it is a handful of miles in our State--that anybody was contesting. So why not issue the permit? Why not get the project going? My colleagues worked very hard on coming up with a solution, and their solution works. It says: Construction can begin immediately. Why? Because, as my colleague from North Dakota has explained well, Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate foreign commerce. This bill exercises that power in a thoughtful, deliberate, and careful way. It says: Look, this project has gone through 3 years of study and analysis. It specifically notes in this legislation the part regarding Nebraska will be solved, as the Federal Government has been saying for months, by Nebraska officials, but that we can go forward and start construction elsewhere. So what is holding up the creation of these jobs? What is holding up our ability to get more oil from places such as North Dakota and a friendly ally such as Canada, versus a very unfriendly ally in Hugo Chavez in Venezuela? What is holding that up? What could possibly be holding that up? Well, the simple answer to that question is, the President of the United States is holding it up. The President is in a bind. The environmentalists have declared war on the oil sands in Canada. They do not want the pipeline because they do not want the oil sands. On the other hand, unions want to build the pipeline. They want the jobs, and thoughtfully so. So this is a time where Congress does need to step in and exercise our constitutional powers. This is nothing unusual. In fact, there was a recent opinion by the Congressional Research Service which noted the Congress has the power to do exactly what this legislation is doing. I will wrap up my comments today and yield back the time to the Senators from South Dakota and North Dakota and say this: This is a win-win situation for everybody. It is a win because we create jobs. It is a win for our country because we are trying in every way possible to get the Federal Government to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Maybe the only person who it is not a win for is President Obama in his reelection. But this is a case where we need to put national interest ahead of November. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that was thoughtfully crafted. It is the right approach. I thank them for their sensitivity to the process going on in the State of Nebraska.

Mr. JOHANNS

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

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to rise in support of a man who has proven himself worthy to serve as a Federal judge on the U.S. district court. Justice John Gerrard has experience, integrity, and respect for the Constitution--all of which are necessary for someone serving on our Federal bench. He has earned the respect and the admiration of the people of Nebraska. He consistently receives top ratings from the Nebraska State Bar Association, and the people of Nebraska have expressed their confidence in him not once, not twice, but three times, voting to retain him on the bench. Justice Gerrard has authored hundreds of opinions throughout his 16 years as a member of the Nebraska Supreme Court. These decisions reveal with clarity his philosophy regarding the powers and limitations of a judge. They reflect his commitment to adhere to the Constitution and the laws of our great Nation. When asked about judicial restraint after his nomination to the U.S. district court, Justice Gerrard responded: I firmly believe that a judge should rely on the admissible evidence and applicable law (and nothing else) when rendering a decision. He further responded: I do not believe a judge should consider his or her own values or policy preferences in determining what the law means--and I have never done so at any time in my judicial career. This unequivocal statement says a lot. Justice Gerrard knows that his more than 450 opinions are a matter of public record and that they are open to everyone's scrutiny. He has welcomed that. He has welcomed it with humility. You will not hear him boast about being the youngest person ever appointed to my home State's high court, nor will you hear him boast about his successful years as a private attorney and city attorney--and they were successful. He is absolutely unassuming. He is reflective and he is articulate. He speaks with great reverence about the oath he took to uphold the Constitution. I did not know Justice Gerrard prior to his appointment to the Nebraska Supreme Court, but he quickly developed a reputation as a disciplined judge who renders very well researched opinions. I believe Justice John Gerrard is a worthy member to join the U.S. district court, and so I stand here today urging my colleagues to vote in favor of his confirmation. I would also like to take a moment to talk about the process that brought us here this afternoon. In this regard, I would like to offer my appreciation and thanks to my colleague from Nebraska, the senior Senator, Ben Nelson. Senator Nelson called me before this nomination was made and asked for my input. I took that opportunity to sit down with Judge Gerrard and to talk to him. After our meeting and knowing what I knew about the justice, it was my decision to support his nomination to the U.S. district court. In fact, I would say, if I had total control of this nomination, I would do it all over again. This is a fine man. This is a man who I hope will have strong bipartisan support this afternoon when we vote on making him a U.S. district judge. He is a good man, and he deserves a strong bipartisan vote. He is going to adhere to the laws of our Nation with integrity, humility, and a strict adherence to the law. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the leader's comment and his question. The leader is absolutely right. The people of Nebraska, through their elected officials, have worked with the company building this pipeline in that they have resolved their differences. The reason I support this legislation and have decided to be a cosponsor of the legislation is that this legislation respects the Nebraska process. It says there will be a process in Nebraska where we will site the pipeline in the best place. This legislation says that is fine. But what this legislation also acknowledges is, on the entire rest of the pipeline outside of the State of Nebraska, this is ready to be built today. The President of the United States has had 3 years of background study and extensive environmental study, as the leader has pointed out, and nothing is going to change outside of the State of Nebraska. So work can begin today. There is just one person holding up that work. That is the President of the United States. With the stroke of a pen, he can turn this project loose. It will respect what is going on in Nebraska. Workers can be hired, the pipeline can be built, and those jobs can be literally provided today. So I support this legislation. I am proud to be here this morning to say that and to thank the Senator from North Dakota, the minority leader, and all others who have worked with us to solve this problem. The problem is solved. We are ready to create the jobs. It is my hope the President will announce that he is ready to proceed to create these jobs for American workers.

Mr. JOHANNS. I have worked on this issue for a number of months-- actually, a couple of years. Here is the situation: Unions are ready to go to work. I talk to the locals in Nebraska on a regular basis, and they talk about unemployment numbers that are staggering, in the double-digits, which, in our State, is remarkable because we have an unemployment rate of 4.2 percent. The unions are ready to go to work, bringing their skills and their talents to bear. The leader's observation is absolutely right. For the environmentalists, on the other hand, it is not the pipeline, it is not the location, it is that they do not want the tar sands development to occur. So the President is on the horns of a dilemma. Part of his base, the unions, are saying: Create the jobs. There is already a pipeline. Let's go out there and do this in the most environmentally sensitive way we possibly can. On the other hand, the environmentalists are saying: No, Mr. President. They have circled the White House. They have done all of these things. Well, the President solved this dilemma he finds himself in, in my judgment, by announcing he would just delay this until after the election.

Mr. JOHANNS. Well, in response to the leader's question, the Canadian Government has already indicated that if the United States is not a reliable purchaser and transporter of this commodity, they will have to look to other parts of the world, for example, China, to sell this product. This will not stop the development in that area. In fact, it will push the development to a part of the world where the refinery process might take place with fewer environmental standards and, therefore, cause more environmental problems than if we build this pipeline and solve it. That is why from the very beginning I have said: Look, I am not opposed to the tar sands development. I am not even opposed to the pipeline in our State, now that we have solved the problem. As I said, there is one person who can create these jobs today. That is the President of the United States. With the Prime Minister with the President, it would be a perfect opportunity to say: We do not have to wait until after the election. Let's create these jobs today. Let's put Americans to work.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great American military leader from Nebraska, Colonel Randall L. Koehlmoos, U.S. Army. Colonel Koehlmoos died in Jakarta, Indonesia, where he was the Chief of the Office of Defense Cooperation at our U.S. Embassy. Officers in the U.S. Army have many roles. We most often recognize those who lead soldiers in combat. Others are assigned to protecting and promoting vital American interests throughout the world. During a notable career, Colonel Koehlmoos served with equal skill and commitment in both roles. His life of public service began early when a high school art teacher invited him to attend a National Guard drill. Randy was hooked. After joining the Nebraska Army National Guard, he attended the University of Nebraska and earned an officer's commission through the ROTC program. He spent much of his early career with the famed 82nd Airborne Division, where he became a master parachutist with over 100 jumps. He led a platoon during the 1991 gulf war and later a company during NATO operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The diplomatic side of the colonel's career emerged in the 1990s. Not satisfied with what many consider easy assignments in U.S. Embassies, he immersed himself in history, culture, and language. He would become fluent in four foreign languages and attend the Pakistan Army Staff College. A crowning achievement for Colonel Koehlmoos--beyond leading soldiers in combat--was writing a major article about relations between the United States and Pakistan. His article, titled ``Positive Perceptions to Sustain the U.S.-Pakistan Relationship,'' was published in the prestigious Army War College quarterly Parameters. The decorations and badges earned during his distinguished service speak to his dedication and his skill: Defense Superior Service Medal, Bronze Star, NATO Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism, Meritorious Unit Citation, and several foreign nation awards. He was perhaps most proud of having earned the Master Parachutist Badge. Colonel Koehlmoos was known to be a no-nonsense individual. He was always focused on the mission. But Randy had a soft spot. An unrelenting spiritual love of family dwelled inside this stoic, professional Army officer. His wife Tracey and his sons Robert and Michael and David meant absolutely everything to him. The colonel's larger family extended through his parents Larry and Karen Koehlmoos of Norfolk, Nebraska, to friends and colleagues around the world who revered his strength, compassion and leadership. Today, I ask that God be with the family of Colonel Randall Koehlmoos. Their faith is strong, and I pray it brings them peace at this very difficult time. And may God bless all those serving in uniform and bless their families. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS

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

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleagues, Senator Grassley of Iowa and Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Recently, the Des Moines Register reported that an Iowa- based insurance company has decided to exit the health insurance market, abandoning insurance sales directly to individuals and families. So what is the net effect of all of that? Thirty-five thousand policyholders will lose their insurance. It calls to mind the famous promise by the President: If you like your plan, you can keep it. The story doesn't stop there. It has an even more profound impact on the lives of real people. The impact goes on. One hundred ten employees will lose their jobs. Seventy of those employees are in Nebraska. That calls to mind Speaker Pelosi's broken promise: The law will create 4 million jobs--400,000 jobs almost immediately. The driving factor for all of this is a Health and Human Services regulation required by the health care law which micromanages how insurance companies can spend their revenues. Unfortunately, this job loss in Nebraska is not an anomaly. A recent survey of nearly 2,400 independent health insurance agents and brokers from all over came to this conclusion. One month after this HHS regulation took effect, more than 70 percent had experienced a decline in their revenues. And, more shocking, nearly 5 percent had lost their jobs. The Government Accountability Office reported that most of the insurers they interviewed were reducing individuals' commissions. These are not the big insurance companies that were railed against in the health care debate. These are not the big insurance companies that are being squeezed. The good folks who are being squeezed are the mom-and- pop agencies that we find on Main Street throughout the United States. Yes, these are the folks we go to to support the local football team, the local high school, the local 4-H club, whatever the civic cause may be. And yet, with unemployment hovering around 9 percent, the health care law puts the hammer on these people. I reached the conclusion long ago that the health care law is bad for job creation and it is bad for keeping your job. The Des Moines-based insurance company's CEO's job loss, according to him, was: A fairly predictable consequence of the regulation. UBS Investment Research called the health care law: The biggest impediment to hiring . . . which has the added drawback of straining State and Federal budgets. The National Federation of Independent Businesses said: Small business owners everywhere are rightfully concerned that the unconstitutional new mandates, countless rules and new taxes in the health care law will devastate their businesses and their ability to create jobs. What we are seeing with this law is a massive amount of overregulation. According to a recent Wells Fargo-Gallup small business poll, government regulations are the most important problem facing our small business owners. If we just focus again on the health care law, that legislation alone has resulted in 10,000 pages of new Federal regulations and notices--10,000 pages. How could any small business comply? The employer mandate penalizes employers for growing. It is as simple as that. It forces employers who do not provide acceptable coverage to pay a penalty of $2,000 per full-time employee. But, you see, the penalty is applied to firms with more than 50 employees. And as a small business owner in the Bellevue, NE, area recently explained to me: I'm not growing my business over 50 employees. I don't want to deal with your health care law. Well, as I mentioned, this discussion starts, at least today, with that article in the Des Moines Register. With me today is the very respected Senator from the State of Iowa, Senator Grassley. I would ask Senator Grassley, what impact does he see arising out of this health care law in his State and, even more broadly, across this country?

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Grassley for this explanation of what this law is doing and the impact it is having. Today, of course, we are starting our discussion with the article from the Des Moines Register which talked about the regulatory impact. But we cannot forget there are other pieces to this law that have just as severe an impact. I would like to spend a minute or two talking about the destructive taxes that are in this legislation. When we add it all up, the new health care law basically requires new taxes of about $\1/2\ trillion--not to pay down the national debt, not to solve the Nation's debt woes but to create a new entitlement. The Treasury Department's Inspector General for Tax Administration has looked at the impact of the health care law on the Tax Code and said this: ``The law is the largest set of tax law changes in 20 years.'' That is no small undertaking when we think about all that has happened over the last couple of decades, that we ended up with an impact on the Tax Code that is the largest set of tax law changes in 20 years, according to the Treasury expert who looked at this. There are 42 separate provisions adding to or amending the Internal Revenue Code in the health care law. So much of this law was put together in the last days of this debate, people were scrambling around trying to read it and understand it and get information out to their constituents. Speaker Pelosi said: We will probably have to pass this law to figure out what is in it. And we are now figuring out what is in it, and it is so much more than a health care law. There are 42 separate provisions that add to or amend the Internal Revenue Code. The Boston Globe weighed in on this. They pointed out the 2.3-percent excise tax on medical device suppliers, according to the Globe, ``will force industry leaders to lay off workers and curb the research and development of new medical tools.'' There is no question about it. When we add up the tax law changes, the impact from a regulatory standpoint and the other provisions of this law, this is not going to result in the promised jobs that Speaker Pelosi spoke of. It is a job killer. If we look at what this law is doing, it will actually shrink the labor force, actually create a disincentive to work or to receive a pay raise. I referenced earlier in my comments a small business owner in the Bellevue, NE, area. I was sitting in a Business Roundtable a little more than a year ago. We were just going around the room, and I was listening to small businesses describe to me some of the challenges they face. A woman, a small business owner, said to me: Mike, we have studied this health care law every which way we can. I am right on the edge of having 50 employees. I am told if I go over 50 employees, I am now subject to all of the ramifications of the health care law. After looking at this I have decided I will not grow my business beyond 50 employees. I do not want to deal with this health care law. Her discussion with me has stuck with me all of these months. Why is it that Washington would actually pass legislation that would discourage her from hiring additional employees to grow her business? It makes no sense whatsoever. Why are we here in Washington creating a disincentive for the small business owner? Why are we costing Americans jobs? The Congressional Budget Office has looked at this legislation. They have come to the conclusion that the American labor supply will be reduced by 100,000 workers. The CBO quote is this: The law will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market. The more we learn about this health care law, the more we come to realize this is flawed policy. It passed and it was signed into law by the President of the United States, but it goes beyond flawed policy. It impacts real people who are trying to make a real living. My comments today started with a story about 50 Nebraskans who lost their jobs or are about to lose their jobs because of the health care law. I am concerned that it is not going to stop there; that as employers are more and more burdened with the thousands of pages of regulations, they will come to realize their best strategy is to try to figure out how to deal with these new requirements and they will pull back on hiring, which is exactly what we do not want to have happen in this economy. With that, I conclude my remarks and our colloquy today. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for about 12 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, few things provide me with greater charity than conversations I have with people back home in Nebraska. I rise to discuss a few of those conversations I had just last week during our work period back home. I used this opportunity to meet with electricity providers serving Nebraskans across the great State of Nebraska, from the more populated areas such as Omaha, to smaller communities such as Hastings, NE. It will come as no surprise, I believe to anyone, that the focus of their frustration, their anger is with the EPA. They feel they have been treated unfairly. They feel the Agency has not been straight forward or transparent. They feel they now have a target on their backs, and they know that compliance with the latest EPA regulatory bombshell is going to have a crushing impact on the communities they serve. Their latest concern is a rule known as the cross-state air pollution rule or cross-state. The rule addresses airborne emissions that EPA claims cross State lines and may affect air quality in another State. EPA issued the final rule in July of this year. Let me repeat that. EPA issued the final rule in July of this year and then demanded compliance by January 2012. That is 6 months. That is an impossibility and EPA knows it. Here is why it is an impossibility. This is especially relevant to my State. Nebraska was not included in the old version of the same rule, the so- called clean air interstate rule. We were not a part of it. The final rule changed dramatically from the proposed version. For example, the required reductions increased dramatically from the proposed rule that was published in July of 2010. So Nebraska first found itself subject to this type of EPA rule in the proposed rule in July of 2010. Then the final rule arrives a year later and, boom, it is a dramatically different rule--more severe reductions in compliance in an almost laughable 6 months. Basically, Nebraska gets a final rule thrust upon them and no opportunity to comply. That could not be more unjust. Draconian changes made in a final rule that depart so significantly from the proposed rule defeat the very purpose of our laws that prescribe how agencies are supposed to make rules. I ran one of those agencies as Secretary of Agriculture. This process makes a mockery out of the rulemaking process. It makes public comments absolutely meaningless. What good does review of a proposed rule do when the final rule is so radically different from the original proposal? It also means the community regulated cannot plan and cannot fix the problem. This is our government we are talking about. Utilities cannot go to their ratepayers and say: Look, we have to make changes. It is going to take some time and money, but here is our plan and here is how much it will cost as a ratepayer. EPA has totally shoved aside the traditional role that some State regulators play as an EPA partner in establishing clean air plans known as State implementation plans. In fact, in this case, the EPA established a Federal implementation plan, a one-size- fits-all national plan that completely rejects State efforts to manage compliance. Our power providers and regulators are echoing this same message. There just is not enough time for them. Instead of 3 or 5 or 10 years that is needed, by administrative fiat, EPA has said: They get 6 months to rebuild a powerplant. Let me be crystal clear about what Nebraska's power providers did and did not do. They did not say: We cannot change and we will not change. They did not say: Just leave me alone. What they did say to me, very clearly, is: We cannot waive a magic wand. We cannot do the impossible. We cannot put together the finance plan in 6 months. We cannot put a request for bid out and get the work done in 6 months. We cannot get a design plan written by a competent engineering firm. We cannot arrange for a plant shutdown. We cannot get the construction crews to our facility, especially as cold weather sets into our State between now and January 1 to rebuild the powerplants. It simply is not humanly possible. What options are possible? Someone listening to me might ask: What options do they have? Unfortunately, the first thing our providers are doing is just trying to understand the rule. That in itself is no small task, because as I explained, the rule is essentially brand new. The ink is barely dry. The EPA did a head fake. They said: Here is the rule and then completely changed it in the final rule. Secondly, electricity providers are making plans--get this. They are making plans all across this country to decrease electric generation because of this rule. In Hastings, NE, ratepayers have been told to expect an increase in operating costs of at least $3.8 million per year. Including costs of retrofits for this rule and two others that are in the works by EPA, Hastings figures $40 to $50 million will be spent over the next 5 years. Think about that for a second. Imagine $40 to $50 million for a community of 25,000 people. That is for Hastings and only if the utility can figure out how it can get it done. Guess who bears the brunt of these costs. Every Hastings resident with an electricity meter--not shareholders. This is not a big electric company. No shareholder equity will be drawn down, no preferred stock to be newly issued. We are, in our State, a 100-percent public power State. Just those folks in Hastings, NE, because they got swept into an EPA rule last July with a January deadline. Fremont, NE, another great Nebraska community caught in the crosshairs, has indicated the cross-state rule and two other EPA rules will cost customers about $35 million over the next 3 years. In New York City or Washington, DC, $35 million may seem insignificant. But to the 25,000 residents of Fremont, NE, it is a huge deal. Similarly, the cross-state rule will cost the Nebraska public power district, our largest electricity provider, about $6 million next year in reduced revenue, as well as mandating about $40 million in costs before the end of 2012. Electricity providers across the State are all looking at purchasing power from other generators. The only way they can get compliance now is to reduce generation. Of course, many neighboring utilities in the State are subject to the same final rule. Guess what. This is the problem across the country. So everybody is in the hunt, and the short compliance timeframe is likely to drive the price of energy even higher. Another option includes purchasing pollution credits on the open market. No one knows how much it will cost because the same comprised timeline affects the markets for credits. People may have also noticed I have not mentioned the bid, the design, the implementation, the installation of pollution control equipment as a compliance strategy, because in our State, that possibility is not an option for us because of the EPA's timeline. Six months is not enough time, especially when the labor, the technical knowledge, the contractors, the financing are all being chased by our utilities subject to the same rule. Is it any wonder people are frustrated? Is it any wonder at all? That is why today I am introducing legislation that addresses the way the EPA handled this rule. My bill takes a couple reasonable steps to address this unfair treatment, not only in my State but in 27 other States. First, under my bill, EPA is prohibited from dictating Federal implementation plans unless the Agency has given the State a sufficient amount of time to develop a plan. The State must be given 2 years to put a plan in place. In addition, if my bill is enacted, EPA cannot choose to reject a State's plan if, as a result, compliance would immediately follow. In other words, my bill prohibits EPA from jamming States by rejecting their plans and requiring an unreasonable compliance timeframe. Finally, my bill says EPA's compliance deadlines are set aside for 3 years while States get a chance to put this together. The message of my bill is straightforward: Do not freeze out States. Do not jam us with a compliance schedule that everybody knows will not work. Nebraskans, similar to everybody else, are tired of being treated as second-class citizens by an agency that has run amuck. I suspect the same is true of 27 other States. Nebraskans simply cannot believe EPA is hitting the accelerator on a rule that will drive up electricity bills in more than half the country with no way for States to comply. I share their frustration. The EPA is in a constant thirst for power. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, to introduce one small dose of common sense to this out-of-control agency.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, few things provide me with greater charity than conversations I have with people back home in Nebraska. I rise to discuss a few of those conversations I had just last week during our work period back home. I used this opportunity to meet with electricity providers serving Nebraskans across the great State of Nebraska, from the more populated areas such as Omaha, to smaller communities such as Hastings, NE. It will come as no surprise, I believe to anyone, that the focus of their frustration, their anger is with the EPA. They feel they have been treated unfairly. They feel the Agency has not been straight forward or transparent. They feel they now have a target on their backs, and they know that compliance with the latest EPA regulatory bombshell is going to have a crushing impact on the communities they serve. Their latest concern is a rule known as the cross-state air pollution rule or cross-state. The rule addresses airborne emissions that EPA claims cross State lines and may affect air quality in another State. EPA issued the final rule in July of this year. Let me repeat that. EPA issued the final rule in July of this year and then demanded compliance by January 2012. That is 6 months. That is an impossibility and EPA knows it. Here is why it is an impossibility. This is especially relevant to my State. Nebraska was not included in the old version of the same rule, the so- called clean air interstate rule. We were not a part of it. The final rule changed dramatically from the proposed version. For example, the required reductions increased dramatically from the proposed rule that was published in July of 2010. So Nebraska first found itself subject to this type of EPA rule in the proposed rule in July of 2010. Then the final rule arrives a year later and, boom, it is a dramatically different rule--more severe reductions in compliance in an almost laughable 6 months. Basically, Nebraska gets a final rule thrust upon them and no opportunity to comply. That could not be more unjust. Draconian changes made in a final rule that depart so significantly from the proposed rule defeat the very purpose of our laws that prescribe how agencies are supposed to make rules. I ran one of those agencies as Secretary of Agriculture. This process makes a mockery out of the rulemaking process. It makes public comments absolutely meaningless. What good does review of a proposed rule do when the final rule is so radically different from the original proposal? It also means the community regulated cannot plan and cannot fix the problem. This is our government we are talking about. Utilities cannot go to their ratepayers and say: Look, we have to make changes. It is going to take some time and money, but here is our plan and here is how much it will cost as a ratepayer. EPA has totally shoved aside the traditional role that some State regulators play as an EPA partner in establishing clean air plans known as State implementation plans. In fact, in this case, the EPA established a Federal implementation plan, a one-size- fits-all national plan that completely rejects State efforts to manage compliance. Our power providers and regulators are echoing this same message. There just is not enough time for them. Instead of 3 or 5 or 10 years that is needed, by administrative fiat, EPA has said: They get 6 months to rebuild a powerplant. Let me be crystal clear about what Nebraska's power providers did and did not do. They did not say: We cannot change and we will not change. They did not say: Just leave me alone. What they did say to me, very clearly, is: We cannot waive a magic wand. We cannot do the impossible. We cannot put together the finance plan in 6 months. We cannot put a request for bid out and get the work done in 6 months. We cannot get a design plan written by a competent engineering firm. We cannot arrange for a plant shutdown. We cannot get the construction crews to our facility, especially as cold weather sets into our State between now and January 1 to rebuild the powerplants. It simply is not humanly possible. What options are possible? Someone listening to me might ask: What options do they have? Unfortunately, the first thing our providers are doing is just trying to understand the rule. That in itself is no small task, because as I explained, the rule is essentially brand new. The ink is barely dry. The EPA did a head fake. They said: Here is the rule and then completely changed it in the final rule. Secondly, electricity providers are making plans--get this. They are making plans all across this country to decrease electric generation because of this rule. In Hastings, NE, ratepayers have been told to expect an increase in operating costs of at least $3.8 million per year. Including costs of retrofits for this rule and two others that are in the works by EPA, Hastings figures $40 to $50 million will be spent over the next 5 years. Think about that for a second. Imagine $40 to $50 million for a community of 25,000 people. That is for Hastings and only if the utility can figure out how it can get it done. Guess who bears the brunt of these costs. Every Hastings resident with an electricity meter--not shareholders. This is not a big electric company. No shareholder equity will be drawn down, no preferred stock to be newly issued. We are, in our State, a 100-percent public power State. Just those folks in Hastings, NE, because they got swept into an EPA rule last July with a January deadline. Fremont, NE, another great Nebraska community caught in the crosshairs, has indicated the cross-state rule and two other EPA rules will cost customers about $35 million over the next 3 years. In New York City or Washington, DC, $35 million may seem insignificant. But to the 25,000 residents of Fremont, NE, it is a huge deal. Similarly, the cross-state rule will cost the Nebraska public power district, our largest electricity provider, about $6 million next year in reduced revenue, as well as mandating about $40 million in costs before the end of 2012. Electricity providers across the State are all looking at purchasing power from other generators. The only way they can get compliance now is to reduce generation. Of course, many neighboring utilities in the State are subject to the same final rule. Guess what. This is the problem across the country. So everybody is in the hunt, and the short compliance timeframe is likely to drive the price of energy even higher. Another option includes purchasing pollution credits on the open market. No one knows how much it will cost because the same comprised timeline affects the markets for credits. People may have also noticed I have not mentioned the bid, the design, the implementation, the installation of pollution control equipment as a compliance strategy, because in our State, that possibility is not an option for us because of the EPA's timeline. Six months is not enough time, especially when the labor, the technical knowledge, the contractors, the financing are all being chased by our utilities subject to the same rule. Is it any wonder people are frustrated? Is it any wonder at all? That is why today I am introducing legislation that addresses the way the EPA handled this rule. My bill takes a couple reasonable steps to address this unfair treatment, not only in my State but in 27 other States. First, under my bill, EPA is prohibited from dictating Federal implementation plans unless the Agency has given the State a sufficient amount of time to develop a plan. The State must be given 2 years to put a plan in place. In addition, if my bill is enacted, EPA cannot choose to reject a State's plan if, as a result, compliance would immediately follow. In other words, my bill prohibits EPA from jamming States by rejecting their plans and requiring an unreasonable compliance timeframe. Finally, my bill says EPA's compliance deadlines are set aside for 3 years while States get a chance to put this together. The message of my bill is straightforward: Do not freeze out States. Do not jam us with a compliance schedule that everybody knows will not work. Nebraskans, similar to everybody else, are tired of being treated as second-class citizens by an agency that has run amuck. I suspect the same is true of 27 other States. Nebraskans simply cannot believe EPA is hitting the accelerator on a rule that will drive up electricity bills in more than half the country with no way for States to comply. I share their frustration. The EPA is in a constant thirst for power. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, to introduce one small dose of common sense to this out-of-control agency.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a fallen hero, Petty Officer First Class Caleb Nelson of Omaha, Nebraska. Petty Officer Nelson died on October 1, 2011, when his vehicle was struck by an explosive device in Afghanistan. He was on combat patrol with fellow SEAL team members when the attack occurred. His desire to succeed and help others led him to military service. For Caleb, it had to be the best. For him, that was the Navy SEALs. Military commanders trusted Petty Officer Nelson's judgment and his commitment. He was typically assigned a leading role on search missions, placing the lives of many SEALs in his capable hands. Caleb was in the lead position when he was killed. The decorations and badges earned during his distinguished service speak to his dedication and to his skill--The Bronze Star with Valor, the Purple Heart, the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, the Combat Action Ribbon, the Good Conduct Ribbon, the National Defense Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Medal, the Sea Service Ribbon (2 awards), the NATO Service Medal, the Expert Rifle Ribbon, and the Expert Pistol Ribbon. Although Caleb's life was cut short, he had a wide circle of friends and touched the lives and hearts of many. His dynamic and energetic personality caused people to look to him as a motivator and as a mentor. Those who knew him recall his deep faith in Christ, his strong interest in physical fitness, and a focus on getting things done. Throughout his life, Caleb grew in his Christian faith and quickly became a rock of support for others. No problem was too small to lay before Caleb. There was also an unrelenting love for family dwelling inside this tough, physically fit SEAL. His wife Anna and his sons, David and Kyle, meant everything to him. When Caleb wasn't training or on assignment, he was with them. Caleb also benefited from a strong relationship with his loving parents, Larry and Barb, his nine siblings, and a faithful community of fellow believers who admired his strength, his compassion, and his leadership. Today, I ask that God be with the family and friends of Caleb Nelson and bring them comfort during this very difficult time. Their faith is strong, so I know they will join me in seeking God's blessings on those currently serving in uniform, especially those involved in combat operations. May God bless our servicemembers and their families and bring them home safely.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, there has been a lot of talk about how we go about rebuilding the infrastructure after recent disasters and how we assist struggling States to accomplish that goal. Many in this body do not believe the Federal Government should borrow money in an attempt to bail out States. We have our own financial mess right here at the Federal level that citizens across this country are saying, rightfully so, we have to get solved. But we can all agree that one of the best things the Federal Government can do is get out of the way and cut through the redtape. We must remove Federal hurdles and barriers, so much cumbersome process that constitutes the largest barrier to rebuilding our infrastructure. In fact, I am very pleased to rise this morning and report there is language in the appropriations bill that I believe should get unanimous support in this body. It is part of the transportation section. It simply says States may rebuild their roads and their bridges that have been damaged in disasters without having to repeat environmental study after study. Gosh, what a commonsense solution. Keep in mind, we are talking only about replacing roads and bridges that have already been through process, that are already there, that were carrying traffic before the disaster. What we are saying is the most practical we could possibly say; that is, there is no need to repeat the expense of the time-consuming studies. Let's get out there and help the States get the work done. In other words, it saves States time and money by cutting through redtape and allowing them to, very simply, rebuild their roads and bridges. I commend the senior Senator from the State of Nebraska, Mr. Nelson, for authoring this language. It is a commonsense approach, something we are used to in the Midwest, and it doesn't add one dime or one dollar to the Federal deficit. This language should receive unanimous bipartisan support, especially from every Senator whose home State has been hit by disaster. Literally, as I speak, our State is trying to figure out how to recover. Notwithstanding the fact that I think most people would agree this is so common sense, my colleague from Washington State, Senator Murray, has an amendment that would strike this language. I can't imagine why this body would stand in the way of States trying to rebuild their roads and bridges. In fact, in addition to States, Senator Nelson's language would help counties and communities that are so cash strapped, with so limited tax base, saying we will help them too. For local authorities, the cost of repeating environmental studies is crushing. Even President Obama has called on his administration to drop unnecessary regulations and to look for redtape to cut through. Senator Murray's amendment, in all due respect, would do exactly the opposite. Her amendment would dig our bureaucratic heels into the sand, and it would say to States and communities and counties we know they have been struggling, we know they have been hit hard by disaster, but we are going to keep our expensive hurdles squarely in place. We are going to force them to jump over each and every one of them. The language authored by my colleague, Senator Nelson, is a commonsense way to remove these Federal hurdles. I received assurance just this morning from the department of roads in my home State that this language would clear the way for several rebuilding projects in Nebraska. But we are not alone. I am guessing road departments across this country would say the same. There is little doubt in my mind that it would do the same for other States that have been faced with disasters, from the Midwest to the Northeast. We should rally behind Senator Nelson's language and make sure his efforts to clear a pathway for recovery are not blocked by the Murray amendment. I encourage my colleagues to vote against the Murray amendment, to stand with me on the side of cutting redtape preventing States from rebuilding roads and bridges. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a fallen hero, U.S. Army National Guard Master Sergeant Christian Riege. He and two fellow officers were killed when a gunman opened fire at a Carson City International House of Pancakes on September 6, 2011. This was a tragic event. It ultimately took the lives of four people and left hollow hearts from Nevada to Nebraska, where his father and mother and several relatives live. Master Sergeant Riege enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1992. As a career noncommissioned officer, Chris spent much of his time in uniform training young soldiers. He entered the Nebraska National Guard after his service in the Navy. Like many National Guard NCOs, he held more than one military occupational specialty. With experience as an infantry soldier and knowledge of mechanics and supply logistics, Chris set the standard high for the soldiers he trained. He excelled in physical fitness, and he was a natural teacher. He served a 22-month deployment in Fort Irwin, California with the task of training units deploying for overseas contingency missions. Chris most recently served with the 1st of the 221st Cavalry in Afghanistan, earning his combat spurs during this tour. The decorations and badges earned over his distinguished career include the Combat Action Badge, the Meritorious Unit Commendation with oak leaf cluster, the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal with four oak leaf clusters, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal, and the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with one campaign star. Chris is remembered as a soft-spoken warrior with a love for fixing things. A fellow soldier and friend, Master Sergeant Paul Kinsey, made reference to his demeanor: You can't just label him with one word or one phrase. Still waters run deep. The Riege family laid their soldier to rest in Page, Nebraska, on September 17, 2011. Today, I join the family and friends of Master Sergeant Riege in mourning the death of their son, father, fiance, friend, and fellow soldier. Nebraska is honored to call him one of our own, and I know both Nebraskans and Nevadans will surround his family during this very difficult time. As we honor this hero, may his children--Serrah, Erica, Synde, and Michael--always know the bravery with which their father served and the love he had for them. May God bless the Riege family and all of our service men and women, both here and abroad. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I come to the floor today--thankfully for the last time, I hope--in support of the pending free-trade agreements with Korea, Panama, and Colombia. For nearly 3 years we have heard the administration say the right things. Yet there were countless delays. It has been 1,566 days since the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement was signed, 1,568 days for the Panama agreement, and 1,786 days since we completed negotiations with Colombia. Finally, though, I believe the waiting has ended, and the administration took action and has submitted these agreements for a vote. I am eager to vote for all three FTAs this evening and to see their job-creating power in action. By the administration's own estimates, these agreements will spur a quarter of a million new jobs. We should all be able to agree that the benefits of trade are significant. In my home State of Nebraska alone, more than 19,000 jobs and more than $5.5 billion in revenue were directly tied to exports in this last year. With these agreements, these statistics will only improve. Nebraska is a big agricultural State, and these three agreements eliminate tariffs and other barriers on most agricultural products, including beef, corn, soybeans, and pork--all products grown in Nebraska. In fact, according to the Farm Bureau and economic analysis from the USDA, full implementation of those agreements will result in nearly $2.5 billion increases in U.S. agricultural exports each year. In Nebraska, this increase in agricultural exports is expected to total about $125 million per year and add another 1,100 jobs to our State. The benefits for my home State are not hard to see. In fact, they would be hard to miss. As the Nation's fourth largest exporter of feed grain and a key beef State, the U.S.-Korea agreement holds great opportunity and promise for Nebraska. It immediately eliminates duties on nearly two-thirds of U.S. agricultural exports to Korea. U.S. exports of corn for feed enter at zero duty--zero duty immediately. For the second largest corn State, that is a significant leveling of the playing field. And it phases out the 40-percent tariff on beef muscle meat and the 18-percent tariff on variety meats. The Colombia agreement offers great opportunities to both manufacturing and the agricultural sector. Just one example: Nebraska manufactures and exports irrigation pivots to customers all over the world. Currently Colombia imposes a 15-percent duty on pivots, which would be eliminated by this trade agreement. This will allow Nebraska manufacturers to compete on a level playing field with European companies. The Colombia agreement also eliminates barriers for many Nebraska agricultural products, including beef, corn, soybeans, pork, and wheat. In particular, the agreement immediately eliminates the 80-percent duty on some of the most important products to the U.S. beef industry--prime and choice cuts of meat. The Colombia agreement eliminates all tariffs on wheat and barriers on corn and on soybeans. Unfortunately, during these years of delay I referenced at the start of my comments this morning, negotiators for other countries saw an opportunity. Negotiators from the European Union, Argentina, and Canada saw the void the U.S. companies, workers, and farmers should have been filling, and they acted. As a result, our exporters now face even greater competition in these markets. For example, when the U.S.- Colombia agreement was signed, American wheat farmers supplied 70 percent of the Colombian market. In 2010, U.S. wheat growers supplied only 45 percent of that market. During that time, the United States lost market share in Colombia to competitors such as Argentina and Canada that did not wait on the sidelines, and now they enjoy duty-free access. Because of unnecessary delays, our farmers have lost out in markets they dominated when this agreement was signed. But if we act quickly, if we pass these agreements tonight, U.S. producers can work to build back market share. I am confident that Nebraska farmers, businesses, workers, and those around the country can compete with anybody in the world, and in doing so we can create jobs here at home. By the administration's estimates, the Korea, Colombia and Panama Free Trade Agreements will create, as I have referenced, 250,000 U.S. jobs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce took a broader view; they have an estimate of 380,000 jobs to be created. But either number is worth celebrating. In May, the President called for ``a robust, forward-looking trade agenda that emphasizes exports and domestic job growth.'' I am glad the President has turned these words into action on these long overdue job- creating agreements. These three bipartisan votes should have been near the top of the agenda 3 years ago. By now, we should be voting on new agreements this administration has negotiated, not the leftover work of the past administration. During the challenging economic times our Nation has endured, we should have been exerting every ounce of energy to get our economy going. That is not done by heavyhanded government regulation and massive, unsustainable new government spending. It is accomplished by lowering and removing barriers so our job creators can flourish in a global environment. That is what we have today--an opportunity to give our job creators a chance to flourish in the global environment. We cannot ignore that the fastest growing opportunities for American businesses, farms, and ranchers are not in the United States or outside our borders, they are overseas in rapidly developing countries where 95 percent of the world's population lives. I sincerely hope those long delays have not hurt our ability to negotiate high-quality trade agreements, but more importantly, I hope it has not hurt the ability of Americans to compete in these growing markets. I look forward to working with the administration over the rest of this Congress on forward-looking trade efforts. Real progress forward would produce even more opportunities. I am optimistic this morning. I am optimistic that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in voting in favor of the trade agreements with Korea, Panama, and Colombia. Together, we can allow hard-working Americans to create jobs here at home. I hope these three agreements are the beginning, not the end. Following today's vote, we should rejoice in an accomplishment, but more work remains to be done. I am prepared to tackle this endeavor, as I did when I was Secretary of Agriculture. For the sake of our Nation, I hope to find willing partners on these three votes and, in the future, more trade agreements and additional opportunities. Before yielding the floor, I ask unanimous consent that all time during the quorum calls be divided equally.

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

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

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend Rule XXII, including germaneness requirements, for the purpose of proposing and considering amendment No. 692 to S. 1619 or any related substitute amendment to S. 1619.

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 to honor a fallen hero-- Navy Master-At-Arms Petty Officer First Class John Douangdara of South Sioux City, Nebraska. Petty Officer Douangdara was part of the East Coast Based SEAL team on the Chinook helicopter that was downed by enemy fire in Afghanistan on August 6, 2011. He was a dog handler for the SEAL team. He and his combat assault dog led their unit on patrols in order to expose dangerous explosives and hidden enemy combatants. He and 29 fellow servicemembers, and his combat assault dog Bart paid the ultimate price in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. As a dog handler, the East Coast Based SEAL team entrusted their lives to him and to his dog. His first dog Toby was killed in action in Iraq. His second dog Bart would die with him on the helicopter. The name ``Douangdara'' can be difficult to pronounce, so his Navy comrades soon gave him the call sign ``Jet.'' Members of his unit remember him for being trustworthy and always positive. The decorations and badges earned during his distinguished service speak to his dedication and his skill. He received the Purple Heart, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Bronze Star with ``V'' Device, the Joint Service Commendation Medal with ``V'' Device, the Army Commendation Medal, the Presidential Unit Citation (2 awards), the Good Conduct Medal (2 awards), the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Service Medal (3 awards), the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Medal, the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (3 awards), the Overseas Service Deployment Ribbon (3 awards), the Rifle Marksmanship Medal, and the Pistol Marksmanship Medal. I am told Petty Officer Douangdara had a joyful disposition and a deep sense of commitment to American ideals that were evident to everyone he encountered. John's high school friends and teachers recall his sense of humor coupled with a competitive desire to win. Participating on the high school mock trial team was one way he directed his very considerable energy. John was also about helping others. It was not a surprise to those who knew him that his energy, focus, and empathetic nature would lead him to military service and the challenge of working with the Navy SEALs. John belongs to a very special family. His mother and father escaped from Laos 31 years ago and emigrated to the United States. They settled in South Sioux City, Nebraska, where they grew and nurtured a very respected family. The South Sioux City community honored John with a special memorial service on September 25, 2011. They also named a local park after John. I know his community and Nebraskans as a whole are enormously proud of his service. I am confident they will provide his family with comfort during this very difficult time. Today, as we bow our heads with the Douangdara family, I ask that God be with all those serving in uniform and that He bring them home safely. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.