Floor Statements

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, it is an honor for me to stand and pay tribute to Saxby Chambliss. I think the first time I got to work around Saxby was when I was nominated as the Secretary of Agriculture, and I think the first hearing Saxby chaired as chairman of the Senate ag committee might have been that hearing.

I arrived in Washington, and I was scared to death. I had no idea what to expect. But I met with Saxby, and I knew immediately that when I was in that hearing I was going to be treated with dignity and with respect because he wouldn't have it any other way. That is the way he did business.

Fortunately, I was confirmed, and that started our working relationship. In those years, I would not try to argue that we agreed on every nuance of farm policy. I am positive there were times when Saxby was convinced I didn't understand a thing about southern agriculture. But he was patient and he was determined to represent all of agriculture, whether it was the South, the Midwest or the West. His goal was to be a chairman of the ag committee for all of agriculture. It was during that time the farm bill was written, and he was a tough negotiator. He had a mind in terms of where he was headed and he was going to stand up for his people and I came to respect him so much.

It was in the Senate though where I truly began to understand his talent. I can't tell you how many times we have been in a caucus meeting and somebody would ask the most intricate, difficult question relating to intelligence and national security, and invariably we would turn to Saxby. Saxby would stand and, in that quiet but forceful way he has, he would walk us through the intricacies of the issues. On whatever the topic was, he would explain it in a way that literally everybody in the room understood. They got it. Watch out. You had better be prepared to be Senators with the information he had given us.

What has impressed me so much, and I know I speak for my colleagues when I say this, is he could do the same thing with the most intricate issues relative to farm policy or ag policy or finance or the Federal budget. The breadth of his knowledge is absolutely unbelievable.

I thank you, Saxby, for the many times you probably disagreed with me immensely but treated me thoughtfully and respectfully and listened to my opinion. I saw you do that with other Members in this body. I thank you for your service. As one of the retiring Members, I will look forward to the opportunity to spend more time with you. I hope our paths cross many times in the future because I know I will be the better for it.

God bless you, my friend, and best wishes.

I am an original cosponsor of this legislation and appreciate your long-standing partnership on this issue. The bill clarifies that, in establishing the minimum leverage capital and risk- based capital standards under section 171, the Federal Reserve Board is not required to include activities or companies that are engaged in the business of insurance and are subject to State insurance regulation, including State insurance capital requirements. Similarly, regulated foreign affiliates or subsidiaries engaged in the business of insurance and subject to foreign insurance regulation and foreign insurance capital requirements that have not been deemed to be inadequate also may be excluded from section 171 capital standards. We believe it is worth noting that the Government Accountability Office found that the State risk-based capital rules performed well during the financial crisis.

The bill allows the insurance capital requirements that have been effective to continue to determine the capital requirements for the activities of insurance companies and groups that are supervised by the Federal Reserve Board. Furthermore, activities of a holding company supervised by the Federal Reserve Board that are not the business of insurance would remain subject to the capital standards under section 171. In determining insurance versus non-insurance activities of a supervised entity, the legislation provides regulators with the flexibility to tailor the rules for certain affiliates or subsidiaries of insurance companies that are necessary to the business of insurance, including, for example, affiliates or subsidiaries that support insurance company general and separate accounts.

Our legislation defines ``business of insurance'' by reference to section 1002 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and under this definition the business of insurance means ``the writing of insurance or the reinsuring of risks by an insurer, including all acts necessary to such writing or reinsuring and the activities relating to the writing of insurance or the reinsuring of risks conducted by persons who act as, or are, officers, directors, agents, or employees of insurers or who are other persons authorized to act on behalf of such persons.'' The reference to this definition of the ``business of insurance'' will help ensure that insurance activities of federally supervised companies are subject to tailored capital rules, whether those activities are undertaken by the insurance companies themselves or by their affiliates or subsidiaries on their behalf.

I wish to start by saying I so appreciate the kind words by Senators McCain, Chambliss, and Isakson. I see there are others in the Chamber who may weigh in and offer a thought or two. I can't express how much I appreciate it.

I would like to offer a few thoughts--my farewell thoughts--today.

I rise, first, to convey a very deep and sincere appreciation to the people of a really great State, the State of Nebraska. They have entrusted me with the high privilege and the solemn responsibility of representing them in this body.

I am honored to have served as a Senator from Nebraska, and I hope and pray that I have done so in a manner that upholds the high standards that Nebraskans have rightly established for their elected office holders.

If I could turn back the clock 32 years I would do it again--from my first day as the county commissioner, throughout my service as a Lincoln City Council member, as mayor of our capital city, Lincoln, as the Governor of Nebraska, in President Bush's Cabinet, and now as a Senator. No doubt about it, if I could turn back the clock, I would just do it again.

I am so grateful for the trust placed in me and the support of so many people who have made this service possible.

Let me start with the top of the list, and that would be my family. My wife, Stephanie, has been an incredible pillar of support.

One of my best friends refers to her as ``spirited.'' That would be an understatement. She is a true partner. She has given her whole heart to public service--both her own service as a State senator and as a county commissioner when we first met--and to mine.

I thank my children, Justin and Michaela, who are now grown up. They have their own families. We have five beautiful grandchildren. They have been a source of true joy and pride. They too have cheerfully supported me despite the sometimes long hours and the missed birthdays--I could go on and on. It cut into that dad and grandpa time.

I offer a special word of thanks to the hundreds or thousands of volunteers whom I could never thank individually. They went out there, pounded the yard signs, walked the precincts, worked the phone banks, and they probably wrote checks when the bank account was pretty low. Their belief in me is what has been inspiring in those campaigns.

Another group of people near and dear to my heart are my current and former staff, campaign or government related. We have always called ourselves Team Johanns. It is an extended family and for good reason. Their hard work, their commitment, and their professionalism enabled me to represent and serve our great State and our country.

I have not only been truly blessed by the privilege to serve, but I have been blessed by the privilege of meeting some very extraordinary people.

In my various roles I have been with world leaders, spiritual heads, cultural icons, Presidents, Vice Presidents, Prime Ministers, Queens, and Kings--all memorable experiences to be sure. But I will say they are not the extraordinary people I speak about today. My real inspiration comes from ordinary people whom I have observed and watched do remarkable, extraordinary things.

Each year for the past 6 years, I have had the privilege of selecting a Nebraska family to be honored as ``Angels in Adoption.'' Each year their stories of unconditional love show the limitless capacity of the human heart.

One family, the Welchels of Harrisburg, NE, went from two children to seven. They adopted five children, all with special needs, but their selflessness did not stop there. They created a camp where these very special kids could share life's journeys. How powerful is that?

I have learned that heroes walk among us daily whose courage is revealed in split-second decisions, and in that split second they put the lives of others in front of their own.

Two Nebraskans did exactly that in 2012. A school bus had collided with a semitrailer on a rural road near a community called Blue Hill, NE. These individuals, Ron Meyer and Phil Petr, arrived on this horrific scene. They bravely ran onto that burning bus and pulled five children to safety. A witness who was there at the scene expressed absolutely no doubt those five children would have perished, as others sadly did, if not for the remarkable courage of Ron and Phil.

I have been so moved beyond words by my conversations with the parents of our fallen men and women in uniform. I would call them to offer them my condolences, and I have found their strength to be so astounding. To a person, they speak with such passion about love of country and pride in their loved one's service, despite sorrow. They honor their children with their patriotism. They honor their children with their fortitude. Their grace through incomprehensible grief inspires immeasurable gratitude. May God bless them and all of the families of the fallen.

Walking the streets of a tornado-ravaged community--and I have done that too many times as Governor and as a Senator--I saw ordinary people doing extraordinary things.

One stands out especially in my mind. I watched in amazement as Kim Neiman, the Pilger, NE, city clerk, attempted to take care of every conceivable need of every single resident following a devastating tornado that literally leveled this Nebraska community.

Her tireless advocacy, her raw determination was focused entirely on the community she loved. She had virtually no regard for her personal loss.

You see, her home was destroyed, and her life was turned upside down by this tornado as well. But for Kim, community came first.

These are good people, and there are so many more like them. They inspired me, and they have motivated me to search for solutions to break through partisan rancor that too often dominates this government.

But they also fuel my optimism for the future. You see, I believe that America's strength is in the fabric of which we are woven. The threads of this fabric include both the character of our people and the wisdom reported in our Constitution.

It is a very strong and very durable fabric that withstands the overreach of any one President and the misguided policies of any one administration.

That is why I look back, not with any regret--I would do it all over again--but with gratitude. There were victories won during my time here, and I am pleased to have lead some of those charges. But I have to admit many battles remain.

I would be dishonest if I denied some feelings of frustration about the absence of the will to address issues of paramount importance to our country, but I know that no issue is powerful enough to shred the fabric of this great Nation. Rather, these challenges are overpowered by the ordinary people who do extraordinary things, by the character of our people, and by the wisdom of our Founders. So I reject the prophecy of hopelessness.

As the challenges we face grow more urgent--and they will--so grows the collective fortitude to address them, and I believe that is about to intensify.

On January 3, I will officially pass the baton to Senator-elect Ben Sasse, and I wish him the best. With the 114th Congress, there will be a new day in this Chamber, a new majority, and a lot of new faces. I hope they embrace the new opportunities to exemplify true statesmanship.

Although confidence in our Nation's ability to solve problems may be shaken, I still believe ordinary people can do extraordinary things-- even here in Washington, DC. May God guide those efforts and may God bless this great country, the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, just a word or two to both leaders. Thank you so much for your kind words. I also want to say thank you for mentioning my wife Stephanie. This has been a remarkable partnership for a lot of years, and I could not have done what I did without her. So thank you to Senator McConnell. Mr. Leader, thank you. It has been an honor to serve in this body. I will have more to say next week in my farewell speech, but I did not want this day to go by without expressing my appreciation. Thank you.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise today to honor the service of a dedicated leader in my home State of Nebraska.

Governor Dave Heineman has guided our State during the past 10 years with vision and with laser-like focus on efficient government, economic vibrancy, education, and protecting our families.

Under his leadership and careful management, our State held strong through the economic downturn. During that time, the national spotlight shown very brightly on Nebraska as one of the healthiest States, guided by Dave Heineman's very steady hand, to ensure we remain debt-free and fiscally sound. But the Governor did far more than hold the line on spending and balancing the books of our great State. He provided historic tax relief, bolstered education in our State, and he sent a signal worldwide that Nebraska welcomes new business through enhanced economic development incentives. It is not surprising that Nebraskans' enthusiastically elected and then reelected Dave Heineman to the post, giving him the proud distinction of being our longest serving Governor in the history of our State.

I had the privilege of working side by side with Dave Heineman back in my days as Governor of Nebraska. I was so proud to have him as my Lieutenant Governor in my second term, and I was always grateful for the job he did directing the State's homeland security efforts.

We would have to flip the history books back to 1990, nearly 25 years ago, to see when he was first elected to public office as a member of the Fremont, NE, city council. Four years later, he was elected to his first statewide office to serve as our State treasurer. I was mayor of the city of Lincoln at the time, and I enjoyed watching Dave step onto the statewide stage with enthusiasm and determination. He wanted to get things done.

Nebraskans would nod their head in agreement with the assertion that he remains as determined today, in the last days of his time in office, as the very first day he walked in.

I should note he first served the public as a member of our Armed Forces, having spent 5 years in the U.S. Army after graduating from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. As anyone can tell you, it is easy to spot those West Point influences even today. All of those experiences prepared him so well to serve as our Governor. I had absolutely no doubt about his ability to step into the role when I was confirmed as the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. I passed the baton to Dave with immense confidence, and indeed he took the helm and never missed a beat. It is difficult to believe that was 10 years ago. I think both of us have a lot more gray hair to show for it, but we also have something more valuable than gold: the honor of having been entrusted to lead and to serve the best State of the United States. I know Governor Heineman has worked each day to prove worthy of that trust, as I have also. His nearly 25 years of distinguished service required strength of character and fortitude.

Throughout that service and long before it began, Dave has had a wonderful partner in his life, Sally Ganem. Our First Lady is impressive and accomplished. She is a woman in her own right, having served as principal of an elementary school and now leading numerous volunteer and literacy efforts. She has supported Dave every step of the way on a public service journey that offers a shining example for others to follow. Thus, it is fitting that we have never before had a Governor whose service spans 10 years, and we may never have that again.

On behalf of a grateful State and a grateful nation, I offer my sincerest gratitude for the dedicated leadership Governor Heineman has provided to our great State of Nebraska.

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

Mr. President, each year, I have the honor of recognizing outstanding parents who have chosen to adopt as Angels in Adoption. I am

continually inspired by the number of families in Nebraska who have selflessly and lovingly opened their hearts to children without a permanent place to call home. Selecting just one family is always a difficult task, but this year Jay and Mary Saunders of Bellevue stood out from the others. I am pleased to announce Jay and Mary Saunders of Bellevue as 2014 ``Angels in Adoption.''

The Saunders have one biological son and have adopted six children: Nick, Ian, Nathan, Haylee, Mara, Christian, and Kevin. Nick, the eldest, is their biological child and born with special needs. Providing his specialized care moved the Saunders to open their home and hearts to adopting other children with disabilities.

Mary always knew she was meant to adopt and have a big family. When Nick was 4, 2-year-old Ian entered their lives. He suffered from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, ADHD. But the moment they laid eyes on Ian, the Saunders knew he was meant to be part of their growing family.

Mara was adopted soon afterward. When she came to the Saunders through a private adoption, she required special needs that resulted from abuse she previously suffered. Today, Mary calls Mara her ``lifes work'' and ``little guru.''

It wasn't long before siblings Nathan, Haylee, Christian and Kevin were adopted together in March 2013, and were welcomed into the Saunders' growing family.

Throughout the past 15 years, the Saunders have worked to integrate immediate and extended families. This includes the birth families of some of the children. Mary often tells her children you can never have too many people ``loving you.''

Through hard work, compassion and a lot of love, Nick continues to defy his learning disabilities--excelling in high school and planning to enroll in college. Ian no longer has attachment issues or suffers from ADHD. Mara has learned to deal with her emotions without medication. Nathan recently won a best athlete award for the Omaha- area. Haylee and Christian's education has improved leaps and bounds since becoming part of the Saunders family. The youngest, Kevin, continues to relish in the footsteps of his older siblings. Together, the seven children continue to thrive and grow, thanks to Mary and Jay.

Each of the Saunders has been an inspiration to me. It is my hope and theirs that their family will serve as an inspiration to others who may be interested in pursuing foster care and adoption.

I want to again thank Mary and Jay for their work to improve the lives of their children and congratulate them once again on being selected as 2014 Angels in Adoption.

Mr. President, I was here during the days when the Affordable Care Act was being debated, if you could call it that. I was here during the time when the effort of Senate Democrats was simply to keep 60 together so they could pass this bill under any circumstances. There were all kinds of promises made as to what this bill was going to do.

President Obama himself, when he talked about his plan for health care, said: My plan is going to reduce your premiums by $2,500 a year.

But I could go on and on. I could spend the whole afternoon talking about the promises that were made. Now it is time though to take stock and determine whether those promises were in fact kept. The people of our States tell that story. A Nebraskan from the central part of the State wrote to me recently and said this: He and his wife are losing the health insurance they have had for over 21 years. Their premiums had doubled, threatening their retirement savings.

He went on to say, ``ObamaCare has ruined the lives we planned and we

worked so hard for.'' So let me compare what this gentleman from Central Nebraska has seen with the promises that were made. Remember that promise the President made over and over again. Members on the Democratic side of this body made the same promise. The promise was, if you like your plan, you are going to get to keep it--and the promise that your health insurance premiums would go down.

This gentleman from Central Nebraska is living proof that those promises were not kept.

Another Central Nebraskan wrote to me about the effect of the health care law on his wife's job and on his family: ``Because of the ACA she was cut back to less than 25 hours a week and lost our health insurance.''

He went on to say that their new premium is twice as much as the plan they liked and the one they lost because of ObamaCare.

So you see again we have a situation where we can compare reality with the promises that were made. The promises that your premium would go down, that you could keep the plan you had if you liked it went out the window for those two families.

A small construction company from the western part of Nebraska shared this with me: They will be paying an additional $5,000 in ObamaCare fees this year. They expect to dedicate over 52 hours to report and comply. To them this is incredibly frustrating because these fees and hours of compliance have no direct benefit on their employees, their employees' benefits or their business mission. It is just the Federal Government has now taken this small company and forced upon them additional costs and additional compliance requirements.

One of the most compelling stories comes from the mother of a family in Omaha, NE. She explained in her letter that they qualify for a subsidy on the exchange, but the options on healthcare.gov were still unaffordable for this family. The lowest cost plan had a $9,600 deductible. Does the Presiding Officer know what a $9,600 deductible means to most Americans and to most Nebraskans? It means that if they have the kind of illness or accident or whatever it is that requires significant medical care and if they have to eat through a $9,600 deductible, that means bankruptcy.

When considering this massive deductible, she wrote to me and said, ``It makes more sense to put more money away in savings and just pay for the whole doctor's visit.'' Due to the high cost of plans and their other expenses, she said, ``We are forced to make the choice to go with no insurance.''

I was on the floor during this debate. Democrat after Democrat promised: You are going to have insurance now, promised that premiums would go down, promised that if you liked your plan, you got to keep it. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.

With the new enrollment period on the horizon, the stories will of course continue to roll in. The supporters of ObamaCare, just as when this bill was being debated, would like us to believe their train wreck has been cleaned up, the train cars are no longer lying next to the tracks, and this law is finally on track. But that is not consistent with recent headlines, reality, court decisions, inspectors general reports or just the average American who takes the time to write to us.

Politico reported earlier this month: ``Most state health insurance rates for 2015 are scheduled to be approved by early fall, and most are likely to rise.''

This law should have never been passed, but now it is time to scrap this law and its Washington-knows-best mandates; instead, work toward solutions that truly do address the cost of care and give Americans the flexibility to choose a plan that makes sense for their families.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will begin today by acknowledging the good work of the good Senator from Montana. This bill has been around for a long time, and it is our hope that we will get to a point today where we can say that finally we have solved the problems.

The Senator from Montana has done an excellent job of laying out what this bill is all about and what it is not about, and I don't feel a need today to repeat what he has said, but let me just make a couple of points.

First, the partnership we had in working on this bill was excellent, and that is why it is this far along. It was a bipartisan effort.

This legislation is long overdue, and it does benefit consumers and businesses all across this great country. It is exactly what we look for. It reduces redtape, it encourages competition and protects State law, and it promotes consumer choice. For these reasons, it is my hope the entire Senate unanimously supports the amendment.

I might mention that we passed this legislation out of the banking committee about a year ago. That was after working on this for about 10

years. The House passed this bill last year by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 397 to 6. So I am pleased we can advance this legislation today as part of the terrorism risk insurance bill, which I also support and will vote yes on.

Frankly, it is refreshing to finally be allowed to vote on amendments on the Senate floor. I hope this is a sign of things to come. I thank Senator Schumer and Senator Crapo for their work in bringing us to this point. Without their work, TRIA would not be where it is today.

I urge the adoption of the amendment. I hope we can move the legislation to the President's desk as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield back all time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, at the very start of my comments, let me make it clear that the nominee we are voting on today will have my support. I like her from a personal standpoint. I think she is competent. I think she is able to do the job that is before her. But I do believe the problem she is going to face is that this law is so fatally flawed that she cannot be successful in implementing it.

The simple fact is that it is deeply flawed, and it was from the beginning. The policy simply does not work. We know now that ObamaCare drives up costs, it comes between the doctor and the patient, and it limits health care choices for individuals and for their families. But I urge the new head of HHS--when and assuming she is confirmed--to address all those things that are within her control.

It is critical that the new leader work to restore the transparency and accountability that has been lacking at this Department. One of the latest has been mentioned in other comments by Senators, but it is especially disturbing. It comes from the Washington Post. The article from the Post said: ``The government may be paying incorrect subsidies to more than 1 million Americans.'' Mr. President, 1 million Americans are getting incorrect subsidies. The article goes on to say that the computer systems necessary to verify individuals' income were either defective or they were not even built. That calls into question Secretary Sebelius's commitment to Congress in January that, in fact, the systems were ready and they were working.

Senator Moran and I wrote a letter. We asked for answers from HHS about this news report. Well, nothing but crickets, no response whatsoever.

Just yesterday the Associated Press reported that more than 1 in 4-- or at least 2 million--ObamaCare exchange enrollees have data discrepancies, casting even more doubt on HHS's competency to administer the ObamaCare subsidies.

Families could be in for a shock next April when the IRS notifies them that they must repay money to the Treasury because HHS miscalculated their subsidy. This is troubling because Nebraskans are definitely feeling the effect of ObamaCare, just like citizens across the country. Let me talk about a couple of stories quickly.

A college instructor from Nebraska wrote to me saying:

Due to ObamaCare, I will be unable to teach more than two

courses per term.

Overall, I am losing at least 20 percent of my adjunct

income, and I will definitely be in a rough situation with

zero money coming in this summer.

Regarding ObamaCare, she explains:

We have a one-shoe-fits-all situation, and I don't wear

that shoe.

A young college student in Nebraska shared identical or similar concerns. She says:

Through my job, I was previously able to work 32 hours a

week, but am now only allowed 28 hours.

That is a very significant amount of my already small

college student budget.

Americans like these constituents do not want a law that decreases their earnings and mandates Washington-prescribed insurance that costs more with fewer benefits.

My colleagues and I stand ready to work toward a better health care alternative. We are committed to vigilant oversight of ObamaCare because Americans' health care and trillions in taxpayer dollars are at stake.

But it is my hope that Ms. Burwell, if confirmed, will reverse these troubling patterns at HHS and provide Congress and the American people with the responsiveness, the accountability, and the transparency this post requires.

With that, I yield the floor for my colleague, Senator Sessions.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss EPA's joint proposed rule redefining waters of the United States.

Claims to the contrary notwithstanding, EPA has once again thrown down the gauntlet with this massive expansion of Federal jurisdiction. This new rule in its essence declares almost every body of water to be within Federal regulatory jurisdiction. By conjuring up even the most remote connection to a navigable body of water, EPA is now claiming they can regulate ponds, ditches, and even low-lying areas that are actually dry during most of the year. EPA seems to think it has jurisdiction if there is just a chance that a speck of dirt can travel through a stream, a pond, or even a field to traditional navigable water, and that is clearly not what Congress intended. But the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and even the USDA are touting that they listened to agriculture and that farmers' and ranchers' concerns were, in fact, reflected in this proposal. But if this 370-page rule actually provides certainty and maintains exemptions for farmers, as EPA claims, then why are most farm groups so opposed to it?

We have seen EPA become better and better at messaging to farmers, but unfortunately the actual language of the regulations--their very aggressive approach--really hasn't changed one bit. While EPA has shown a willingness to meet and to listen, the reality is that the words on paper really are what matter.

When Administrator McCarthy came before an appropriations subcommittee a few weeks ago, I pushed her on this issue. Not surprisingly, she told me they are really trying to get this right and listen to agriculture's concerns across the country. But as it stands right now, folks in farm country are justifiably alarmed.

EPA will point to a few exclusions in the rule, but if you look closely, these exemptions are so very narrowly crafted that very few waters actually would escape EPA's regulatory grasp and overreach. For example, under the proposed rule, waters that are perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral can be subject to EPA regulation. That is right--EPA is trying to regulate bodies of water that only have water in them when it is raining. That is just one of the many examples in this rule where it is clear that EPA is trying to push the envelope-- and push it as far as they can.

In its so-called fact sheet on the benefits of the rule for agriculture, EPA touts that exemptions are, in fact, preserved for agriculture. Not only that, but according to the fact sheet, EPA will now exempt 56 conservation practices from permitting requirements. It says this will provide certainty and predictability. That all sounds good as messaging until you actually examine the claims. These exemptions only apply to dredge and fill permitting. All other Clean Water Act permitting requirements do not have exemptions for agriculture. So whether a permit is required for other provisions of the act is simply a function of whether the related waters are Federal waters. Thus, because EPA vastly expanded the definition of Federal waters, farmers are going to get a rude awakening when they are told they need a 402 permit before applying pesticides or when they realize this rule may require them to have a spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan in place or when they realize their farm pond is not exempt simply because they allow livestock to drink from it. Imagine the dismay of farmers when they realize that the much-touted exemptions are essentially meaningless and that they are subject to fines of tens of thousands of dollars per day.

Nonetheless, the Obama administration continues to tout this list of 56 conservation practices that they are proposing to exempt as if farmers should fall silent in gratitude. It is the classic smoke and mirror approach that has led to the tremendous mistrust of this administration. They say one thing while putting policies in place that dictate something entirely different.

Consider this: Even these narrow conservation exemptions are wrapped in fine print and redtape. EPA also says that in order to be exempt, a conservation practice must specifically comply with USDA standards. Again, it sounds reasonable, except that these standards, which were developed for voluntary conservation programs, were never intended to be the only means of avoiding a regulatory hammer. These are gold- plated standards. They are also very prescriptive. That may be fine for voluntary programs that come with compensation for compliance. It is not fine if farmers must follow them or face huge fines. There is nothing voluntary about that.

Can these farmers be sued because they didn't follow supposedly voluntary USDA standards? Can EPA take action against these farm families? Who will enforce compliance with those conservation practices? Will it be the USDA or will it be the EPA? Farmers generally trust USDA's voluntary approach to conservation efforts, but what happens to that trust if USDA is suddenly thrust into the business of enforcing EPA regulations on the farm? Conversely, is EPA going to hold any sway over USDA's voluntary conservation standards? Since they are planning to use those standards to regulate farms, this is a great concern.

Let me mention one additional cause for concern. These supposedly exempt practices are not even in the proposed rule; they are in a separate document from the rule, and that document can change on the whim of the EPA without warning and with no opportunity whatsoever for public comment. So ranchers doing a practice consistent with the list may get the rug pulled out from under them.

EPA claims this rule will provide certainty and predictability, and in one respect they are right. As a constituent of mine from Ogallala rightly put it, ``The only clarity the proposed rule provides is to put me on notice that everything is a water of the U.S. and that I need a permit to do anything.''

So it appears that in an effort to provide clarity, EPA has very much done

the opposite. And I have just scratched the surface here today. But EPA still has an opportunity to fix this mess. While the tendency of this administration has been to overregulate from day one, there is still an opportunity to pull back the rule and admit they went too far.

I had high hopes when Administrator McCarthy took the reins and expressed a desire to build trust with the ag community. In fact, she called it a priority. This rule, though, delivers the opposite message. If Administrator McCarthy is serious about having a relationship with the people I represent--ag producers--it would send such a powerful signal to say: Hold on. Let's withdraw the rule. Let's not follow this misguided direction. Call a timeout, and people would see that and say: I am going to listen. People would receive that so positively. This would certainly get the attention of the ag community and really begin to build bridges instead of outlining rhetorical wishes.

The window of opportunity is still open, and I hope the Administrator seizes it by withdrawing the rule.

I yield the floor.