Floor Statements

Mr. President, each year I nominate outstanding Nebraskans as Angels in Adoption, thanking them for their shining example of caring for children in need, children who want nothing more than a family of their own.

This year, I am pleased to share the story of Paul and Mandy Mueting of Kearney, NB. They are true adoption heroes who have opened their hearts and home to three young boys.

After Paul and Mandy had their biological daughter, Lydia, and became parents for the first time, they could not imagine a child not having the blessing of a loving family. Soon after, they learned of a young mother--a ward of the State herself--who was considering making an adoption plan for her then 22-month-old and 4-month-old boys named Steven and Edward.

In August 2007, the boys were placed in the Mueting home and a plan was put in place for an open adoption. However, the birth mother left without relinquishing her parental rights. This was a setback for the Muetings, but they continued to care for and love the boys with the hope that they could still someday adopt them. Several months later, the boys' birth mom returned, asking for another chance to mother Steven and Edward. The Muetings took time to grieve their loss but did not give up hope of adopting children.

In December 2008, the Muetings were informed by Nebraska Children's Home Society that another birth mother selected their family and wished to place her soon-to-be-born son with them. Evan was born in January 2009. The Muetings were overjoyed. They welcomed Evan into their family with joy.

Not long after they settled in with their new son, the Muetings received yet another call. Steven and Edward's birth mom had again made a decision to relinquish her parental rights. Seeing the love the Muetings had for her children, she requested that the boys be placed once again with Paul and Mandy. This was a big decision. It meant instantly doubling the number of children in their family from two to four. They knew that providing love and care to three adopted children is a big responsibility.

Well, you will not be surprised to learn that Paul and Mandy didn't hesitate a moment. With open arms, they welcomed Steven and Edward back into their lives. The adoption was finalized last year. I am told that Lydia has fully adjusted to being outnumbered by three brothers. All four are fortunate to have each other, a wonderful home, and loving parents.

It is with great pleasure and admiration that I nominate Paul and Mandy Mueting as Angels in Adoption. They

are a wonderful example of compassion. My hope is that their story will encourage others to open their hearts to vulnerable children whose only dream is a loving and permanent home.

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

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

I rise today to actually extend an invitation. The invitation I extend is to our EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson. The reason for the invitation is very straightforward. There is a lot of confusion about EPA's position on regulating farm dust. It is remarkable. The Administrator says one thing, but then the agency takes a different position--back and forth, back and forth it has gone.

Administrator Jackson said, and I am using her words, ``It is a myth that EPA is proposing to regulate farm dust.'' That seems pretty clear, but then her agency says: Well, no, we cannot distinguish between farm dust and other dust subject to regulation, so rural America is not off the hook, it is out of luck.

Well, I was very pleased recently to offer a solution to this EPA dilemma. My solution was offered in partnership with my friend and colleague from Iowa, Senator Chuck Grassley, and others actually from both sides of the aisle. We proposed a simple solution to this confusion. We proposed legislation that--very straightforward--says: EPA cannot regulate farm dust unless there is scientific proof that it causes harm.

That proof does not exist today. Meanwhile, Ms. Jackson and her agency continue to have problems getting this story straight. You see, she scoffs at the idea of regulating farm dust, and then her agency turns around and says: Well, it is really a possibility.

I understand that sometimes the direction from the top can get muddled as it works its way down. After all, EPA is a very large organization.

Surely, Administrator Jackson does not intend to be saying one thing while her agency is saying and potentially doing something quite different. So I am hopeful I have come up with yet another solution.

Today, Senator Grassley and I sent a letter to Administrator Jackson. We have invited her to publicly support our bill blocking the regulation of farm dust. After all, using her own word, this was a ``myth'' in the first place. I think it is a perfect solution. She says EPA has no intention of regulating farm dust, so there is absolutely no reason why she would not support this legislation that makes it official. My letter invites her to put her words into action by issuing a straightforward supportive statement. I look forward to hearing back from her or simply seeing her statement of support in print. Either will be acceptable.

I will tell you this: I believe if Administrator Jackson stands up in response to this and says, yes, I was serious, we are not going to regulate farm dust, that is a myth, and Senator Johanns has it all wrong, I believe rural America will cheer.

Supporting my bill that puts an end to this crazy, ridiculous notion of regulating farm dust would do more to improve Administrator Jackson's image than the charm offensive EPA has recently undertaken.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to engage in a colloquy with my Republican colleagues--Senators Roberts, Portman, Hoeven, Blunt, and Isakson--and in the event the minority leader does appear to offer comments, that we interrupt our colloquy for the minority leader to speak.

Madam President, I rise today with my colleagues to talk about trade and the importance of trade and specifically to talk about three pending trade agreements. And when I say ``pending,'' man alive, am I emphasizing ``pending.'' These agreements have been around a very long time. And I am referring to Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

We all know the benefits of trade in the United States. In Nebraska, my home State, more than 19,000 jobs and more than $5.5 billion in revenue were directly tied to exports last year.

In trade discussions, we often hear about the need to level the playing field. Well, these agreements do exactly that. They eliminate tariffs and a whole host of other barriers on most agricultural products, including products that are important to my State: beef, corn, soybeans, and pork. No doubt about it, they increase the economic opportunities for Nebraska farmers and ranchers, for businesses and for workers.

Well, for 3 years, we have heard the President say the right thing. In fact, every time he would say something about this, I thought, finally, the trade agreements are going to bust loose and we are going to have an opportunity to vote on them.

He said in last year's State of the Union:

If America sits on the sidelines while other Nations sign

trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our

shores.

Then again in May, the President called for a ``robust, forward- looking trade agenda that emphasizes exports and domestic job growth.''

Just last week, the President noted that now is the time. He said, of ``a series of trade agreements that would make it easier for American companies to sell their products in Panama, Colombia and South Korea,'' now is the time. If now is the time, why is the administration continuing to fail to act? It has been 1,538 days since the Korea agreement was signed. It has been 1,540 days since the Panama agreement was signed. It has been 1,758 days since we completed negotiations with Colombia.

As I said, I have colleagues with me today who are in a much better position than I would be to explain the positive impacts of these trade agreements. I am going to ask that Senator Roberts speak first, Senator Portman, Senator Hoeven, Senator Blunt, and Senator Isakson. It is my hope that if there is time permitting, I will wrap up.

I ask Senator Roberts, as former chairman of the House Agriculture subcommittee and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee today, how important are these agreements to agriculture and job creation in the United States?

Madam President, I end my comments today by saying to all of my fellow Senators, thank you so very much for coming to the floor today and making the case. There is an old saying in a profession I used to be engaged in: I rest my case. Well, after hearing from these fine gentlemen about the importance of these agreements and why we need to have the President send them here, I rest my case. It is going to improve job creation. It is going to improve our opportunity to export our products. It is going to level the playing field. It is going to give our producers the opportunity to reclaim market share that has been lost while we have been waiting for these agreements to come here.

The final point I wish to make is this. I come from a State where unemployment is right above 4 percent. In this recession in Nebraska, unemployment never went over 5 percent. In fact, as I was doing my townhall meetings across the State, I had members of my business community coming to me and saying: One of the challenges we are facing is finding the workers for the jobs we are creating. Therefore, in my State, trade adjustment assistance would not be the high priority it is in many States. Notwithstanding that fact, when Senator Blunt came to me and said, look, the President is insisting on trade adjustment assistance as a condition to move these agreements and would I sign on to a letter that will back trade adjustment assistance, I said I would. Why? Because the trade agreements are important to us.

It is my hope that after the many speeches we have all given--the many speeches I have given on the importance of these agreements not only on the Senate floor but across this country--the President is listening and will finally send us these agreements so we can work with the President. We can join forces on these agreements and do everything we can to get the votes in the Senate and in the House to pass them and to put them on his desk and create 250,000 new jobs.

I yield the floor.

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, Nebraska Army National Guard Staff Sergeant Patrick Hamburger, a native of Lincoln who later settled in Grand Island, Nebraska.

Staff Sergeant Hamburger served his country as a flight engineer while mobilized with the Nebraska Army National Guard's Company B, 2nd Battalion 135th General Support Aviation, based in Grand Island. Staff Sergeant Hamburger and 29 fellow soldiers paid the ultimate price in support of Operation Enduring Freedom on August 6, 2011. He was the crew chief on the Chinook helicopter downed by enemy fire in Afghanistan. It is through extraordinary sacrifices such as his that we are able to enjoy the freedoms we have today.

Staff Sergeant Hamburger's unfaltering devotion to duty and pride in his country went beyond the time he spent in uniform. Patrick lived to help others. From his childhood in Lincoln, to mentoring fellow soldiers, those who knew him recall that he was always looking out for others. Patrick's brother Chris remembers his kind spirit by stating:

He didn't worry about himself half as much as he worried

about everyone else. You could have been a complete stranger

and if he could have helped you, he would have done it.

Thirteen years ago, that mentality and sense of patriotism led a young high school senior to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Nebraska against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That oath brought opportunities for Staff Sergeant Hamburger to share his mechanical talent with his fellow soldiers.

Those closest to him will tell us his pride and joy were his family, his friends, and the ``V-Day Express,'' the Chinook helicopter he maintained. He loved being a soldier, and he took great pride in his service.

The decorations and badges earned during his 13 years of distinguished service speak to his dedication and to his skill: the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal (4th Award), the National Defense Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal (with 10 year device), Armed Forces Reserve Medal (with Mobilization Device), the Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, the Army Service Ribbon, the NATO Medal, the Combat Action Badge, the Senior Aviation Badge, the Nebraska National Guard Homeland Defense Ribbon (with M device), the Nebraska National Guard Emergency Service Medal, the Nebraska National Guard Service Medal (10 year device), and the California National Guard Commendation Medal.

These medals, as well as Sergeant Hamburger's willingness to serve others in need, speak clearly to his commitment to upholding the values and ideals that all Nebraskans hold dear. We are proud of his character and the ways in which he represented Nebraska. I am confident that in the coming months, Nebraskans will surround and uplift his family and friends as they mourn the loss of a truly remarkable son, brother, and friend.

Today, as we bow our heads with the Hamburger family, I ask that God protect our servicemembers, both here and overseas.

We are truly grateful for the service and sacrifice made by those in uniform and their families.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as you are aware, my home State of Nebraska has battled devastating flood waters throughout much of this summer. As often occurs during disasters, it resulted in neighbors and communities coming together to help one another. On display in impressive fashion was the sense of determination and self-reliance that is woven into the character of our citizens and the fabric of our State. I have been privileged to witness the resiliency of Nebraskans many times throughout my public service as a county commissioner, mayor, Governor, secretary of agriculture and now, as a U.S. Senator. I am deeply moved by it. The flooding has been tragic, but the response has been inspiring. One shining example of this resiliency and compassion occurred in Blair, NE. In fact, the organized and dedicated response in Blair so impressed officials at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Nebraska Emergency Management Agency that on September 2, 2011, they issued a news release about the incredible response efforts in Blair. It is entitled, ``How the People of Blair Took Care of Their Own,''and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor many times, as we all do, to discuss issues that are important to our States, in my case the State of Nebraska, on issues that are important for our Nation. Many times those comments deal with what seems to be the constant regulatory assault on our Nation's job creators.

In meetings across Nebraska--and I did 15 townhall meetings in August--the second and third questions I often got, if not the very first, concerned the regulatory burden our Federal agencies are placing on our job creators.

This administration has generated nothing short of a mountain of redtape, including hundreds of new regulations. Of these, at least 219 have been categorized as significant. What that means is they will cost more than $100 million per year, $100 million taken out of our economy to finance regulation. The administration doesn't even dispute the mountain of redtape, nor does it dispute the size of the mountain that is created.

In a letter from the President to Speaker Boehner, the White House identified seven regulations on its agenda, each costing not $100 million but at least $1 billion per year. These costs take important capital out of our economy. These costs weigh on our job creators. These costs punish the little guy, and there is no doubt about it.

This mountain is so massive, the administration has had to expand the Federal workforce itself to write the regulations and to enforce them. Employment at Federal agencies is up 13 percent since President Obama took office.

With unemployment in excess of 9 percent, and underemployment greater than that, this administration is expanding the size of government to fuel more job-suppressing restrictions, and it makes no sense. It makes no sense to me as an individual Senator, but it makes no sense to the people of Nebraska.

For this reason, I am introducing legislation with the senior Senator from Arizona to press the pause button on this massive wave of redtape before it engulfs our very economy.

Our legislation is very straightforward. It says: Our small businesses are getting crushed; our citizens can't find jobs. Freeze the regulatory onslaught through 2013.

But our work simply cannot stop there. We also need some targeted regulatory reforms to rein in government bureaucracies that are simply out of control. Thus, I will also be introducing two other pieces of additional legislation today to help temper the endless quest for additional power, jurisdiction and, therefore, regulation.

The first one would close a loophole that allows agencies to grab power

without opportunity for Congressional review.

Under the current state of the law, the Congressional Review Act permits Congress to use special procedures to step in and to disapprove of agency rules. However, in this administration, agencies have recently chosen to use what they call ``guidance documents'' instead of rules to achieve their policy preferences and to expand their power.

I am troubled by this trend because their efforts appear to deliberately and intentionally circumvent American law specifically crafted to protect citizens from aggressive bureaucracies. We have an example, but there are many. I wish to use this one.

I am talking about a guidance document issued jointly by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers on May 2 of this year. It is very recent. The guidance documents's goal is clear--to expand Federal power over waterways.

But don't take my word for it. According to the EPA's own analysis, the guidance would significantly expand the waters of the United States subject to Federal control and regulation.

The Midwestern Farm Bureau has said the guidance ``defines jurisdiction in the broadest way possible.''

This is a page straight out of this administration's playbook. If their policy goal is rejected by Congress, they use their regulatory power to accomplish their agenda any way they can. Stretch the law, ignore the law, claim that the statute is too ambiguous, circumvent it, put out a guidance document to interpret it. That is exactly what they are doing. We have seen this playbook used over and over by this administration and its Federal agencies.

They should have gotten the message after an unsuccessful attempt during the last Congress to vastly expand their jurisdiction over virtually all waters, from irrigation ditches to farm ponds. But like a child that hears ``no'' from his parents, they jumped ahead, the administration went ahead anyway through this guidance document.

As the North Dakota Farm Bureau president described it, the EPA's guidance is an end run around Congress, and I am quoting:

If you can't get what you want with Congress' blessing,

make an end-run around them. That seems to be what is

happening here. And make no mistake. If this guidance is

adopted, EPA could regulate any or all waters found within a

State, no matter how small or seemingly unconnected to a

Federal interest.

The agencies could not convince Congress to change the law. So now what is happening? The same goal is being pursued in a different way that bypasses us. Notably, both the House and the Senate have expressed strong concern about this guidance document. Twenty Senators sent a letter noting that it represents a dramatic expansion of Federal power over private land.

In another letter, 41 Senators asserted that making changes to the scope of the agency's activities through guidance instead of through rulemaking is ``fundamentally unfair.'' This letter requested the agencies ``abandon any further action on this guidance document.'' This is a very significant concern. This guidance document also has shown us that there is a huge loophole through which agencies can circumvent the rulemaking process in its entirety, as well as circumventing congressional intent in order to expand Federal power.

The legislation I introduced today closes the loophole. It amends the Congressional Review Act to cover both traditional rules and guidance documents--no more end run around Congress. Consequently, agencies would be on notice that the loophole through which they intend to circumvent our will and the will of the American public is now a closed door. In other words, citizens would have another layer of protection from agencies seeking to unfairly expand Federal jurisdiction.

Finally, today I am introducing the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act. Farmers and ranchers across this Nation are concerned about the EPA's efforts to regulate dust. Despite what the administrator is saying in farm country, EPA is still in the midst of their review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter or, put simply, ``farm dust.'' In rural America, farm dust is a fact of life. I grew up on a farm. It is dusty there. We kick it up while driving on unpaved roads or working in farm fields. Farm dust has long been considered to have no health concern at ambient levels. However, EPA is considering bringing down the hammer by ratcheting down that standard to a level that would be economically devastating for many in our rural areas. That defies common sense.

To restore common sense to these burdensome job-threatening regulations and to give certainty to rural America, I am introducing this legislation. The bill simply says no to EPA regulating dust in rural America. Yet it maintains the protections of the Clean Air Act to public health. It provides immediate certainty to farmers in rural areas by preventing revision of the current dust standard for a year. Afterward, EPA could regulate farm dust but only if they followed a scientific standard. First, they would need to show scientific evidence of substantial adverse health effects caused by dust. Thus far, the strongest the EPA can conjure up in terms of science is to say it is ``uncertain.'' Second, EPA would need to show that the benefit of additional regulation outweighs economic costs. These are commonsense standards. Yet the EPA has unfortunately been unable to see the light, making this legislation necessary.

These are three commonsense regulatory reforms that are sorely needed: a 2-year moratorium on job-constraining regulations; No. 2, making agency guidance documents subject to a simple up-or-down vote by Congress; and stopping the ill-advised farm dust regulation. They would provide much certainty and relief for our Nation's job creators and our American workers.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor these important efforts. I urge the White House to support us. The runaway train of regulation is weighing down on America's ingenuity and job creation. It is time to unshackle American workers with these commonsense reforms.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor many times, as we all do, to discuss issues that are important to our States, in my case the State of Nebraska, on issues that are important for our Nation. Many times those comments deal with what seems to be the constant regulatory assault on our Nation's job creators.

In meetings across Nebraska--and I did 15 townhall meetings in August--the second and third questions I often got, if not the very first, concerned the regulatory burden our Federal agencies are placing on our job creators.

This administration has generated nothing short of a mountain of redtape, including hundreds of new regulations. Of these, at least 219 have been categorized as significant. What that means is they will cost more than $100 million per year, $100 million taken out of our economy to finance regulation. The administration doesn't even dispute the mountain of redtape, nor does it dispute the size of the mountain that is created.

In a letter from the President to Speaker Boehner, the White House identified seven regulations on its agenda, each costing not $100 million but at least $1 billion per year. These costs take important capital out of our economy. These costs weigh on our job creators. These costs punish the little guy, and there is no doubt about it.

This mountain is so massive, the administration has had to expand the Federal workforce itself to write the regulations and to enforce them. Employment at Federal agencies is up 13 percent since President Obama took office.

With unemployment in excess of 9 percent, and underemployment greater than that, this administration is expanding the size of government to fuel more job-suppressing restrictions, and it makes no sense. It makes no sense to me as an individual Senator, but it makes no sense to the people of Nebraska.

For this reason, I am introducing legislation with the senior Senator from Arizona to press the pause button on this massive wave of redtape before it engulfs our very economy.

Our legislation is very straightforward. It says: Our small businesses are getting crushed; our citizens can't find jobs. Freeze the regulatory onslaught through 2013.

But our work simply cannot stop there. We also need some targeted regulatory reforms to rein in government bureaucracies that are simply out of control. Thus, I will also be introducing two other pieces of additional legislation today to help temper the endless quest for additional power, jurisdiction and, therefore, regulation.

The first one would close a loophole that allows agencies to grab power

without opportunity for Congressional review.

Under the current state of the law, the Congressional Review Act permits Congress to use special procedures to step in and to disapprove of agency rules. However, in this administration, agencies have recently chosen to use what they call ``guidance documents'' instead of rules to achieve their policy preferences and to expand their power.

I am troubled by this trend because their efforts appear to deliberately and intentionally circumvent American law specifically crafted to protect citizens from aggressive bureaucracies. We have an example, but there are many. I wish to use this one.

I am talking about a guidance document issued jointly by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers on May 2 of this year. It is very recent. The guidance documents's goal is clear--to expand Federal power over waterways.

But don't take my word for it. According to the EPA's own analysis, the guidance would significantly expand the waters of the United States subject to Federal control and regulation.

The Midwestern Farm Bureau has said the guidance ``defines jurisdiction in the broadest way possible.''

This is a page straight out of this administration's playbook. If their policy goal is rejected by Congress, they use their regulatory power to accomplish their agenda any way they can. Stretch the law, ignore the law, claim that the statute is too ambiguous, circumvent it, put out a guidance document to interpret it. That is exactly what they are doing. We have seen this playbook used over and over by this administration and its Federal agencies.

They should have gotten the message after an unsuccessful attempt during the last Congress to vastly expand their jurisdiction over virtually all waters, from irrigation ditches to farm ponds. But like a child that hears ``no'' from his parents, they jumped ahead, the administration went ahead anyway through this guidance document.

As the North Dakota Farm Bureau president described it, the EPA's guidance is an end run around Congress, and I am quoting:

If you can't get what you want with Congress' blessing,

make an end-run around them. That seems to be what is

happening here. And make no mistake. If this guidance is

adopted, EPA could regulate any or all waters found within a

State, no matter how small or seemingly unconnected to a

Federal interest.

The agencies could not convince Congress to change the law. So now what is happening? The same goal is being pursued in a different way that bypasses us. Notably, both the House and the Senate have expressed strong concern about this guidance document. Twenty Senators sent a letter noting that it represents a dramatic expansion of Federal power over private land.

In another letter, 41 Senators asserted that making changes to the scope of the agency's activities through guidance instead of through rulemaking is ``fundamentally unfair.'' This letter requested the agencies ``abandon any further action on this guidance document.'' This is a very significant concern. This guidance document also has shown us that there is a huge loophole through which agencies can circumvent the rulemaking process in its entirety, as well as circumventing congressional intent in order to expand Federal power.

The legislation I introduced today closes the loophole. It amends the Congressional Review Act to cover both traditional rules and guidance documents--no more end run around Congress. Consequently, agencies would be on notice that the loophole through which they intend to circumvent our will and the will of the American public is now a closed door. In other words, citizens would have another layer of protection from agencies seeking to unfairly expand Federal jurisdiction.

Finally, today I am introducing the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act. Farmers and ranchers across this Nation are concerned about the EPA's efforts to regulate dust. Despite what the administrator is saying in farm country, EPA is still in the midst of their review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter or, put simply, ``farm dust.'' In rural America, farm dust is a fact of life. I grew up on a farm. It is dusty there. We kick it up while driving on unpaved roads or working in farm fields. Farm dust has long been considered to have no health concern at ambient levels. However, EPA is considering bringing down the hammer by ratcheting down that standard to a level that would be economically devastating for many in our rural areas. That defies common sense.

To restore common sense to these burdensome job-threatening regulations and to give certainty to rural America, I am introducing this legislation. The bill simply says no to EPA regulating dust in rural America. Yet it maintains the protections of the Clean Air Act to public health. It provides immediate certainty to farmers in rural areas by preventing revision of the current dust standard for a year. Afterward, EPA could regulate farm dust but only if they followed a scientific standard. First, they would need to show scientific evidence of substantial adverse health effects caused by dust. Thus far, the strongest the EPA can conjure up in terms of science is to say it is ``uncertain.'' Second, EPA would need to show that the benefit of additional regulation outweighs economic costs. These are commonsense standards. Yet the EPA has unfortunately been unable to see the light, making this legislation necessary.

These are three commonsense regulatory reforms that are sorely needed: a 2-year moratorium on job-constraining regulations; No. 2, making agency guidance documents subject to a simple up-or-down vote by Congress; and stopping the ill-advised farm dust regulation. They would provide much certainty and relief for our Nation's job creators and our American workers.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor these important efforts. I urge the White House to support us. The runaway train of regulation is weighing down on America's ingenuity and job creation. It is time to unshackle American workers with these commonsense reforms.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge an important life milestone for a very patriotic young woman. On September 10, Officer Candidate Vicki Althage in the Nebraska Army National Guard will become 2LT Vicki Althage.

The Army commissions around 7,500 new officers every year, each and every one is a volunteer. Like most of her fellow lieutenants, Vicki did not have to follow this path. She has a college degree and a burgeoning career in public service. From the time she entered high school, the Nation has been at war in our struggle to defeat terrorism.

Vicki enrolled in the Army National Guard Officer Candidate School knowing that she will likely be called upon to serve overseas, perhaps in Iraq or Afghanistan. She also knows that upon becoming an officer, the welfare and lives of soldiers will become her direct responsibility.

The Nation pays frequent tribute to those who served in World War II--we call them the ``greatest generation.'' On September 10, Officer Candidate Vicki Althage will take the oath of office and become an Army officer in what many today describe as the ``next greatest generation.''

Proud parents, other family members, and a fiance will be on hand to witness her commissioning. Another group will also be thinking of her on that day. Vicki happens to be a member of my staff in Nebraska. I can assure you that the entire Johanns office will be cheering loudly and filled with a sense of pride as Vicki accepts this new responsibility.

We hold our heads high when we talk about the strong tradition of military service in our great State. Today I am proud to salute this outstanding member of my staff and dedicated public servant. May God bless 2LT Vicki Althage and her family as she pursues a military career in the Nebraska Army National Guard.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to remember a fallen hero, Nebraska Army National Guard Sergeant Omar A. Jones of Maywood, NE.

Sergeant Jones served as an electrician in the 623rd Engineer Company, Nebraska Army National Guard, out of Wahoo, Nebraska. Sergeant Jones died at Forward Operating Base Deh Dadi in Balkh Province, Afghanistan, on July 18, 2011.

Omar grew up in Mississippi and lived in Bogota, Colombia for many years. He graduated from high school in Colorado and chose to enter the Army instead of pursuing a college athletic scholarship. He served two tours in Iraq. One as an infantryman in the active duty Army, and one with the Nebraska Army National Guard. His love of country compelled him to seek an assignment in Afghanistan. He volunteered and even changed units and developed new skills for this opportunity.

In October 2010, he deployed to Afghanistan with the 623rd Engineering Company. It was a tough decision to deploy again because his wife Ava and two children had become the center of his life. But, it was for their freedom he chose to serve again overseas.

His commanders and fellow Soldiers recall Sergeant Jones as kind, friendly, and helpful. They say they counted on Sergeant Jones for a big smile and a willingness to listen. He loved being a soldier. A former commander put it this way:

He had the biggest heart of any soldier I knew.

His decorations and badges earned during a distinguished career over three combat tours speak to his dedication and bravery. He received the Combat Infantry Badge, Combat Action Badge, Marksmanship Qualification Badge (Expert), Driver and Mechanic Badge, Overseas Service Bar (2), Army Commendation Medal (2), Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star, Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Armed Forces Reserve Medal with ``M'' device (2), Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and the NATO Medal.

I cannot put into words how the death of Sergeant Jones will impact the lives of those closest to him. Nebraska is honored to call him one of our own, and I know Nebraskans in Maywood and Wellfleet will provide his family with care and love during this difficult time.

Today I join the family and friends of Sergeant Jones in mourning the death of their husband, son, father, and friend. I ask that God be with all those serving in uniform, especially the brave men and women on the front lines of battle. May God bless them and their families and bring them home to us safely.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Wyoming. It is my pleasure to be on the Senate floor with him and to talk about my experience in dealing with the reality of a balanced budget amendment.

As I said a couple of weeks ago when I spoke on the floor about this issue, I heard many come to the floor who said: This is a bad idea. This is bad policy. Some have even gone so far as to describe it as almost kind of a radical approach. I have lived with a balanced budget amendment. I have to say I did not find it to be a radical approach whatsoever.

In the State of Nebraska where I was Governor for 6 years, and actually prior to that when I was mayor of the State capital, the community of Lincoln, I had to balance the budget. I had no choice whatsoever about that. In fact, in Nebraska, we had an additional provision. Decades and decades ago, when those who wrote the Nebraska Constitution started thinking about what kind of State they wanted, I think they wisely realized that at some point the politicians would try to hand off or give away the State treasury and promise everything to everybody for obvious reasons: to get elected, to get reelected.

So in the State constitution they said we can't borrow over $100,000. So we had two requirements. One was that on an annual basis the budget had to be balanced, and the spending could not exceed the revenues. The second requirement was that we couldn't issue any bonds or debt to balance that budget and, in fact, we go so far as to not have any debt whatsoever, really. We have a few lease-purchase agreements on some equipment, but that is it. We don't even have debt for our highways. We don't lay a mile of concrete for a highway if we don't have the money to pay for it.

So for those who have described this as sort of a radical approach, let me describe to them how this approach has worked in our State.

Today in our State, our unemployment rate is 4.1 percent--4.1 percent. I will go across the State very soon and do townhall meetings in large communities--from the largest, Omaha, to some of our very smallest. I can almost assure my colleagues that one of the comments I will hear in our rural communities where they are working hard to be business friendly and grow jobs and opportunities for their residents, they will say to me: One of the challenges we have, Mike, is finding the skill of labor we need to fill the jobs we are creating.

I will also share with my colleagues that this experiment--this radical approach that some have described--has resulted in a legislative session that ended early this year, that balanced the budget, and did not borrow any money. I will also share with my colleagues that our pensions are funded. There are no stories about Nebraska pensions are underfunded; that they

have been borrowing out of the pensions so someday when somebody retires the pension will not be there for them.

I will wrap up my comments by drawing the contrast. The contrast with the government that I find here is this: For over 800 days we haven't had a budget. Under the leadership of my friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, we have not had a budget for now going on 3 years. We are being asked to approve the largest debt increase in our Nation's history. That is what this debate is all about.

In addition, we are closing in on $15 trillion worth of debt. The projection is that in about 4 or 5 years from now we will owe $20 trillion of debt.

My colleague mentioned I was in the Cabinet. When I came to join the President's Cabinet as the Secretary of Agriculture and I shook the Lieutenant Governor's hand who has now been the Governor for 8 years-- he is now the President of the National Governors Association--I wished him well. I did not have to say to him: I am very sorry about all the debt I have taken on, because there was none. The bills were paid, the budget was balanced, the pensions were funded, the unemployment rate was low, and he has continued that conservative legacy.

By comparison, when Barack Obama leaves the Presidency, he will tell his successor: I ran up the largest debt in our Nation's history-- larger than any President in front of me. That is the legacy he will leave behind for his children and his grandchildren and ours, and that is the sobering reality of today's debate.

Mr. President, we would never have done that. Had I walked into the unicameral for my State of the State Address and done things such as are being proposed here today, I literally would have been run out. The State senators would have looked at the Governor and said: We need a new Governor. And I think they would have joined in a very bipartisan response to that kind of approach.

My colleague is absolutely right. I looked through the proposal, and I have to say, in all due respect to the majority leader, this isn't going to get the support I think he hopes for. It isn't going to happen. It is going to be voted down. It will not go to the finish line because people just can't support it.

This idea that somehow we are going to get a savings because we are not going to be funding the surge levels in Afghanistan, well, no one was going to do that. The President wasn't asking for it. That money was never requested. So to grab that out, as somebody pointed out--and I wish I could remember who--in a column today, they said that is like trying to grab a savings based upon the fact that we will not be invading Canada this year.

Well, yes, we are not going to invade Canada, but that is not budget savings, and it is not a budget savings to somehow claim we are not going to fund the Afghanistan war for the next 10 years at surge levels because that was never anticipated.

I want to solve this problem, but we have to be real with the American people about how we are solving this problem--with real savings. I know it is painful. My goodness, I have been there. I have cut budgets before. I have had to lay off people. But I think we have to just be straight with the American people and say this is what it is going to take to get there.

That is exactly what the people of Nebraska want to see us focused on.

The debate that is occurring now absolutely is one of the most important debates we have had literally in the history of this country. It was encapsulized in a statement in a column today that I read from a man I have a lot of respect for, Charles Krauthammer. He said this about this debate. He said:

We're in the midst of a great four-year national debate on

the size and reach of government, the future of the welfare

state, indeed, the nature of the social contract between

citizen and state. The distinctive visions of the two

parties--social-democratic vs. limited-government--have

underlain every debate on every issue since Barack Obama's

inauguration: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, health-care

reform, financial regulation, deficit spending. Everything.

The debt ceiling is but the latest focus of this fundamental

divide.

He could not be more right. This is a debate that must occur, as uncomfortable as it may be. Think of where we have been as a nation in the last year and a half. Literally, when the President came to office, the first thing he wanted us to do was to pass a trillion-dollar stimulus plan, if you factor in the interest that was going to be paid, on promises that it was going to fix the economy and employ people, that unemployment would not go over 8 percent.

What happened? Unemployment shot beyond that. Today we see the growth of our economy is literally pitiful. There is no way this economic growth can deal with employing more people.

Then what was the next thing? A health care bill that, quite honestly, the vast majority of Americans did not want. And by the day, story after story, analysis after analysis comes out and says all the promises made during this health care debate by the President and the Democrats will not be fulfilled. There was a story yesterday that this is not going to bring health care costs down. This increases health care costs, and it is one thing after another thing after another thing.

The American people spoke loudly and clearly in November. They said: Get the fiscal condition of the United States under control. I will say this. I do not think anybody is expecting miracles. It took us decades to get in this position. It is going to take concerted, conservative effort to get out of this position over a period of time. But it is on debates such as this where this must start. It is on debates such as this where we must force this government to be smaller, to be more efficient; otherwise, the legacy we leave behind for our children and our grandchildren is $20 trillion of debt in 4 more short years. They will have their own wars to fight. I wish they would be free of war. But they will have their own wars to fight, their own flu pandemics to deal with, their own items on their agenda--education or health care, whatever, that they want to improve--and where will they begin? They will begin with a $20 trillion debt in 4 years. That, as a nation, should be unacceptable to us. That is why we need to do everything we can at every stage to turn this around and start this Nation on the right course.

Mr. President, I rise today to echo my colleagues in recognizing Dave Johnson for his commitment to public service. Having spent 23 years working on agriculture and food policy for the Federal Government, Dave has demonstrated a rare dedication to an industry that provides food, feed, fiber and fuel to people all around the globe.

While serving as Secretary of Agriculture, I had the privilege of working closely with Dave, who was Deputy Chief of Staff at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I fondly remember the many hours Dave spent putting pen to paper and drawing together our ideas into legislative language for Congress to consider as part of the 2007-2008 farm bill process. His knowledge of agriculture policy and his work ethic were invaluable to our efforts. The many hours we spent working on farm policy led to a friendship that I continue to appreciate.

Twenty-three years is a long time to spend as a public servant and Dave has earned our sincerest gratitude for his years of service to farmers, ranchers, conservationists, nutrition advocates, rural Americans and all those affected by USDA policies, who have directly or indirectly benefitted from his work.

I wish Dave the very best as he opens a new chapter in his life. I am confident that with his positive attitude, principled approach and genuinely kind heart, success will follow him down whatever path he chooses.

Mr. President, I want to start out today by complimenting the Senator from South Dakota. He has gotten it absolutely exactly right. I wish to associate myself with the comments he has made.

We are 7 days away from literally a crisis in our country. We are down to a point where it is getting even difficult to try to figure out, with the timelines naturally built into the process, how you get from here to there in 7 days, and yet that is what faces us.

Last night, like many Americans, I watched and listened to the President and listened to Speaker Boehner. I must admit, when it comes to the comments made by the President, I do not understand where he is coming from. He talks about higher taxes and more revenue when the reality is, at this late date, he is the only one talking about that.

I have been one of those people who has said for a long time we absolutely need to engage in a process of reforming our Tax Code. It is too complicated. It is almost an antigrowth piece of work. I am anxious to work with my colleagues. But with 7 days left to try to suggest there will be a massive amount of new taxes does not make any sense. That is not in the Reid plan. It is not in the Boehner plan. Yet there it is.

Well, here we are. We are literally 7 days away. As I said, as I watched those comments last night, it looked to me like campaign rhetoric. It looked like positioning for the next election. It looked like class warfare. What it did not look like to me was Presidential leadership. Yet our creditors around the world are watching this debt limit debate unfold, and they are as shocked as all of us are by the lack of leadership coming out of the White House.

This weekend, the President was presented a bipartisan approach. I found it reassuring over the weekend to know that our leaders in the Senate here were talking and trying to work their way through this terribly complicated issue, very difficult issue. I thought with that kind of effort, when an approach was presented to the President, he would naturally embrace the approach. With only 1 week left, that made the most sense to me. Yet, surprisingly, the President rejected the approach. The reason? Well, the reason is, as he has said so many times, the President does not want to have to deal with increasing the debt limit next year during his campaign for a second term.

I find that shocking since last night, when he addressed the Nation, he expressed great concern about our debt limit negotiations being in a stalemate. Yet he could have used that opportunity by accepting the bipartisan proposal that had been presented to him a day or so earlier. He had the opportunity to show the type of leadership our country needs and is crying out for, but he decided to reject the plan and retreat to political talking points.

The President also said he would veto Speaker Boehner's approach to raising the debt limit for 7 months, claiming it kicks the can down the road--claiming that is what it would be.

Let's look at that. Let's examine what the President is trying to convince this Nation of. Over the last 25 years, Congress has increased the debt limit 31 times. Mr. President, 22 of those 31 times were for less than a year. Yet the President claims he will veto anything not extending into 2013? It defies logic to decry our debt and then veto anything unless it allows more record-setting debt. That is exactly what he is pledging he will do: veto anything less than the largest debt limit increase in the history of the United States of America--the largest.

His last debt limit increase in January was the largest in history at that point--$1.9 trillion--yet instead of hitting the brakes and saying, ``Whoa, time out, this is getting us in trouble,'' the President is doubling down, demanding yet another record-setting budget buster.

Who does the President think is going to pay off all this debt? It will be our children and our grandchildren. Passing multiple trillion- dollar debt limit increases without addressing our addiction to spending does far more to kick the problems down the road. It sends the problems over the cliff, in fact. Yet, despite this reality, the President continues to accelerate, as we get closer and closer to the cliff. The President recently said this:

The only bottom line I have is that we have to extend the

debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013.

While numerous issues accompany this line of thinking, let's hit some high points.

Our national debt is more than $14 trillion, and the President is requesting to increase it to $16 trillion--the largest in our Nation's history. So why is the bottom line only about the length of the extension, not about spending reductions that put our country back on track?

Unfortunately, the President's only fundamental concern is how do we kick this past the next election. Above all else, not good policy, not what is best for our citizens, but the No. 1 goal is how to get past the next election. This is, unfortunately, his bottom line. Simply astounding that the campaign of hope and change has become such business as usual. Simply raising the debt ceiling absent any meaningful spending reforms will not work.

Now we find ourselves in one heck of a mess. With about a week to go, the latest in the debt limit saga is a proposal that was introduced last night by Senator Reid. But here is why this latest plan has so many problems. Policywise, it does not hold together. The plan claims $1 trillion in savings from reductions in troop forces. These savings assume the troop surge extends into perpetuity, which never was the plan. So it assumes savings from stopping spending that was never scheduled or even requested. It is like reaching into the air and grabbing savings. Essentially, this plan counts savings that were scheduled to happen.

Second, the plan counts $400 billion in interest savings on that savings relative to the troop money that was not going to be spent, was not asked for. In other words, not only does the plan count nonexistent savings, it then compounds the policy problem by counting nonexistent interest savings on that savings. You simply cannot count savings that were never intended to happen.

We are dealing with a ticking timebomb here. We have rating agencies saying: My goodness, your debt is so out of control that unless we see a plan, we will not be fooled by the gimmicks. Yet this policy approach does not hold together. You see, the rating agencies, justifiably so, want to see real budget savings that actually help to improve our balance sheet.

We are at a critical time in our Nation's history. With 1 week left, the American people are yearning for bold leadership, not another shell game. Heated rhetoric and charged accusations are not going to fix the fiscal situation.

I stand ready to work with my colleagues on a solution, and I urge the President to do the same. Let's quit defending what is indefensible; that is, worrying about getting the can kicked down the road past the next election, and let's try to figure out how best to address this.

There was a plan that came out recently. It was a plan dubbed from the Gang of 6, and the Presiding Officer and I have had some interest in that plan. But we all acknowledge it is going to take time to put that plan in place, to debate that plan, to bring it to the floor, to do the things that are necessary. We have to take action now. I am a part of a group that says: Look, let's take a long hard look at that plan. Let's see if that is the plan we can move down the field to success.

But we have just 7 days left. We need to face the reality that 7 days from now we will be within hours of hitting our debt ceiling. Incidentally, to those who are arguing: No, it is not August 2, well, if it is not August 2, it is close to August 2. We are facing a real problem where there will not be enough money to pay the bills.

Many say: Pay the interest on the debt. Make sure you get that done. I am not opposed to that. I do not want to default on our debt. But that means we have about 50 cents on the dollar in August, according to a cashflow statement done by the Bipartisan Policy Group, and that means that 50 percent of those out there who would otherwise receive some type of payment from the Federal Government will not get it because there simply is not enough money to pay the bills.

So what does Speaker Boehner's plan do?

Well, it is a plan that is realistic. It says, look, we have to come to grips with where we are in the next 7 days or we can simply suspend rational thought, believe that the record-breaking debt increases to accommodate record-setting debt are somehow a plausible course. It is not.

I am more apt to believe the President's own words. When the debt limit increase was $781 billion to raise our borrowing authority to $9 trillion, then Senator Obama was in the place where we are in today, deciding on whether he would vote for a debt ceiling increase, and he called the situation then a ``failure of leadership.'' He went on to say ``increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally.''

Well, we were at $9 trillion then, an unforgivable amount of money. Today we are at $14.5 trillion, and the steam engine is firing away, building up more and more debt.

Senator Obama's words were as truthful then as they are today. Yet now he has done a 180. His Presidency has hit the turbo booster when it comes to record debt.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.