Floor Statements

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

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

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

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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the Palestinian efforts to gain statehood at the United Nations, which is occurring this week. As most of us are aware, Palestinian Authority President Abbas has signaled that he intends to ask the United Nations for acceptance as a full member state. Several of my colleagues--and I might add from both sides of the aisle--have expressed grave concern over this Palestinian initiative.

President Obama has indicated if this initiative is brought to a vote before the Security Council, the United States plans to veto it. I support that. However, even if the veto occurs, President Abbas may then choose to ask the General Assembly to upgrade Palestinian status to that of a nonvoting observer state. If allowed to become a nonvoting observer state, Palestinians could then participate on U.N. committees and bring allegations against Israel to the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice. Recognizing a Palestinian state in this manner could also lead to further isolation of Israel within the Middle East. These are outcomes we simply cannot tolerate.

Israel, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is a stalwart friend and ally of the United States. They share our core values as a nation. They are a thriving democracy in a part of the world where democracies are very hard to find. And importantly, they stand strong with us in the battle against international terrorism. Thus, it is absolutely imperative we stand with Israel and do everything we can to send a very clear and straightforward message. That message is this: The United States stands with our friends and we will not allow an international organization to undermine this important and valued friend.

Congress has been very clear on this imperative. Our strong bipartisan commitment was reinforced earlier this summer when both the Senate and the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed resolutions reaffirming the commitment of the United States to direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The resolutions included opposition to this Palestinian bid for U.N. statehood in a Palestinian Government that includes Hamas.

In light of this unwavering bipartisan support from Congress, it is crucial that our President continue to make it absolutely clear that the United States stands firm in our opposition to this effort. We have an opportunity and we must signal to the rest of the world that a lasting peace, which we all want to achieve, will only result from direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians and not through parliamentary procedure at some international organization. While the United States supports a two-state solution, we will not tolerate actions by international organizations to drive a wedge into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Although President Abbas claims his initiative is a peaceful approach to resolving the conflict, the Palestinian Authority has refused time and time again to come to the negotiating table and to deal directly with Israel. Setting up roadblock after roadblock, President Abbas has demanded preconditions that have not applied to previous negotiations.

This bid for U.N. statehood also violates the 1993 Oslo peace agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority which required the peace process to continue through direct negotiations. The U.N. statehood bid is counterproductive to a two-state solution as it will further damage Israel's confidence in the Palestinian Authority as a legitimate negotiating partner. Unfortunately, President Abbas's intention to form a unity government with Hamas does not signal support or pursuit of a lasting peace. Hamas has made clear that they have no intention of ending attacks on Palestinians or Israelis and working toward a two- state solution.

Let me be very clear: If the Palestinian Authority continues to associate with Hamas and refuses to negotiate directly with Israel, of course there are consequences. I can assure you the Senate and the House of Representatives will stand together to make our disapproval known. U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority is not on cruise control. Congress will not walk away from supporting an appropriate way forward in the peace process that respects the equal and inalienable rights of all people. We will not and cannot stand idly by while others attempt to use the United Nations, not to bring about peace, but to undermine our closest allies and friends.

As President Obama and his administration continue efforts to resolve this issue before it is brought up to the Security Council, I ask them to do all they can to relay the disapproval of Congress and what President Abbas is trying to do and to stand without equivocation, shoulder to shoulder, with our friend, the state of Israel. It is our best chance of bringing peace to the region.

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

Mr. President, today I recognize Keith Olsen for the dedicated leadership he has provided for Nebraska agriculture.

Through his involvement in various State and national organizations, Keith has brought a renewed focus on supporting youth in agriculture. He has taken an active role in ensuring that the views of farmers and ranchers are communicated to policymakers in both Lincoln and Washington, DC.

Keith has been integral in the development of a vision for the University of Nebraska, the State's land-grant university. And, he has taken a leadership role in educating the public about modern agriculture practices.

Internationally, Keith has represented Nebraska farmers on trade missions around the world. He has promoted our food and agriculture exports in a number of countries, including Japan, Russia, Turkey, and Brazil.

Keith Olsen was born in Imperial, NE and was raised on the family farm near Venango. In high school, Keith was involved in FFA, and his children have been involved in 4-H and FFA. He served as a 4-H leader for 30 years. He graduated from Grant High School and the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, where he majored in agricultural economics.

After college, Keith returned to Perkins County to farm with his father. He married his wife Doris in 1969, and, at the age of 24, Keith and Doris took over the family farm. The Olsens have three sons--Craig, Jeff and Curtis. They are also the proud grandparents of seven. Now in its fourth generation, the Olsen farm is a no-till, dryland operation raising certified seed wheat, wheat, dry peas, and corn.

Keith has served on the Nebraska Farm Bureau Board of Directors since 1992 and was elected to the American Farm Bureau Federation Board of Directors in 2004. He was elected as first vice president of the Nebraska Farm Bureau Board in 1997 and has served as president since 2002.

Keith has been widely recognized for his support of agriculture, including youth and young farmers and ranchers. He received the 2010 Agricultural Youth Institute Award of Merit, the 2011 Nebraska FFA Honorary State FFA degree, and in 2004, he was elected to the Nebraska Hall of Agriculture Achievement.

As great of an ambassador as Keith has been for Nebraska agriculture, he is an even better man. His principled approach coupled with his kindness and compassion for others has earned him the respect of many-- including me. I congratulate Keith on completing a very successful tenure as Nebraska Farm Bureau president and wish him and his family the very best.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for about 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to remember a fallen hero, U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Joshua J. Robinson of Douglas, Nebraska. Sergeant Robinson was killed in action on August 7, 2011, while conducting patrol operations in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. He was in his third tour of duty. His story of service comes to us at a time when many are reflecting on the 10th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks--a fitting time to recognize the patriotism of a fallen hero.

Sergeant Robinson enlisted in the Marine Corps in 2003, a time when Operation Iraqi Freedom was in the beginning stages and many were unsure of what was to come. He felt the call to serve and was rightfully proud of his commitment to defend and protect our country. Sergeant Robinson's love of the outdoors provided him with many of the skills needed to be the best Marine he could be.

Sadly, his life was cut short too soon, and the Robinson family laid their Marine to rest in Hastings, Nebraska on August 16, 2011. Sergeant Robinson returned to his birthplace with valor and honor, having been awarded the Purple Heart, the Combat Action Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, and many other decorations during his military career. He died a brave and most honorable death. We are proud to call him one of our own.

The tradition of military service is strong in our great state of Nebraska, but strong soldiers are not possible without the support of family. I am confident Nebraskans will rally around Sergeant Robinson's family during this difficult time. He is mourned by his wife, two sons, mother and stepfather, sisters, and many others. It is the strength of his wife Rhonda that will remind Wyatt and Kodiak of the love their father had for them and for his country.

His mother Misi provided insight into her son's position to serve when she said:

Our freedom was put on the line. It takes young men like

Josh to enlist and protect the USA.

I know his family is proud of him and will always remember his spirit, his competitiveness, and his enthusiasm for adventure.

May God bless the Robinson family and all of our fighting men and women in harm's way.

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

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