Floor Statements

Madam President, I come to the floor today in support of approving permanent normal trade relations with Russia.

Over the past several years, I have often come to the floor in favor of free-trade agreements and other efforts to expand market access for U.S. exports. This legislation is yet another one of those opportunities. This vote to repeal a 1970s trade law and recognize Russia as a member of the WTO will result in increased export opportunities for U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers. Increased exports lead to increased job creation.

Russia is the world's ninth largest economy, with a population of 142 million and a growing middle class. Russia is already a significant trading partner importing over $10 billion annually from the United States. In just a 5-year period, Nebraska's exports to Russia increased fourfold. In fact, in 2011 alone, total exports of goods from Nebraska were valued at $154 million.

I believe we have the opportunity to continue this impressive trend by recognizing Russia as a WTO member. A vote in favor of this legislation will level the playing field for U.S. job creators looking to take advantage of these growing export opportunities. This is especially true for Nebraska's

equipment and machinery manufacturers. My State has a reputation for producing some of the most sophisticated irrigation equipment in the world.

Acknowledging Russia's membership in the WTO will reduce tariffs on this technology from 10 percent to 5 percent--allowing U.S.-based companies to compete more effectively with others around the globe. Additionally, other agriculture equipment and machinery manufacturers in Nebraska and elsewhere will see tariffs reduced or eliminated. Currently, these tariff rates are up to 25 percent. They will eventually drop to an average well below 10 percent when Russia meets all of its WTO commitments. This is a big deal beyond any single state or sector.

Total U.S. agricultural exports to Russia are forecast at more than $1.4 billion for 2012, and this further opens the doors of opportunity. Here is another example: As part of the WTO accession process, Russia is required to lower its tariffs on U.S. beef products to 15 percent. Additionally, Russia must allow a greater volume of frozen beef imports. The quota will nearly triple: from approximately 22,000 tons in 2010 to 60,000 tons. Meat production is a big part of our agricultural economy--in my home State and in our country--so this is noteworthy.

Now, our agricultural producers will be the first to tell you that they don't think Russia always plays fair in the world of exports. They say Russia sometimes offers unjustifiable reasons to block our products. The fact is, Russia has a less-than-stellar record on establishing predictable, science-based import standards. So our producers have not always had reasonable access to its markets.

As Secretary of Agriculture, I relentlessly negotiated with Russia and other trading partners to grant the same access to their markets for our agricultural products as we granted to their products. This seems fair, right? They should offer us the same access we offer them? But based on Russia's track record on U.S. meat exports, especially pork and poultry, I continue to have concerns. That is part of the reason I have decided we should recognize their membership in the WTO.

The WTO has been an important tool for the United States to level the playing field for our products in the international trading system. Russia will be obligated to apply international food safety standards. This should mean more certainty and predictable market access for U.S. agricultural products. And these obligations will be enforceable through the use of WTO dispute settlement mechanisms.

Integrating Russia into a rules-based trading system and providing the means to enforce those rules will further strengthen the ability of U.S. businesses to export products to Russia. But this is an area where we will need to show great vigilance. As Russia implements its trade commitments, the administration must ensure that Russia does not revert to its old ways on trade. Further delay in repealing Jackson-Vanik would only hurt us.

On August 22, Russia formally joined the WTO after a lengthy process. Over 150 other nations have already taken action and are reaping the export benefits. The United States has been left in the dust. Until we act, we cannot enjoy the lowered tariffs, increased market access, dispute settlement process, and other benefits of Russia's membership in the WTO. Thus, we should vote to repeal Jackson-Vanik and accept Russia as a permanent trading partner.

The move ensures that American businesses are not disadvantaged and losing market share to their competitors. Russia already has access to the U.S. market, so additional delay on PNTR only hurts our workers and companies. Delaying action will only result in the delay of job creation and more lost opportunities for American manufactures, farmers, and ranchers.

Our efficient export system, including handling, processing and distribution of our goods and agricultural products, creates millions of U.S. jobs. At a time when we face some very serious challenges in our country related to debt, deficit, and unemployment, it makes sense to unlock this door of opportunity. Thus, I support removing application of Jackson-Vanik and intend to vote for PNTR with Russia. This status would help to level the playing field for U.S. exporters.

I encourage my colleagues to consider the economic impacts of this bill on our Nation's manufactures, farmers, ranchers, and other job creators, and I look forward to voting to support normalizing trade with Russia.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate and commend Matt Williams, a life-long Nebraskan,

as he recently began his term as chairman of the American Bankers Association.

Mr. Williams is the president and chairman of Gothenburg State Bank, in Gothenburg, NE. Matt has led the bank for 39 years, an institution founded by his great-grandfather. I am fully confident that his strong work ethic, fostered by working summers on the family ranch, and his wealth of knowledge of banking issues will lead him to much success in his new position.

An extremely active member of the community, Mr. Williams has taken a personal role in growing the local economy. He has joined forces with other local leaders to promote Gothenburg, a small town of less than 4,000 people which is now home to operations of 4 Fortune 500 companies. Matt's solid understanding of how access to capital can cultivate economic development and job growth will be essential as he promotes the values of the banking community.

Matt is also no stranger to advocating on behalf of the banking industry. In 2003 and 2004, he served as chairman of the Nebraska Bankers Association and currently serves on the FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking. The American Bankers Association is fortunate to have someone with Matt Williams' knowledge and leadership skills at the helm. He understands the important role banks can play in an economic recovery.

I am confident Matt will tackle the obligations of this new position with the same tenacity that has brought him so much success in his past endeavors. I wish him nothing but the best and look forward to working with him on the issues of the day.

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

When Republicans come to the majority, we will pass a budget, we will work to balance our budget. That is where we are headed.

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

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

Mr. President, I am here today to recognize two incredible heroes from Blue Hill, NE, for their courageous actions amidst a terrible tragedy.

On September 5, an accident between a schoolbus and a semitrailer claimed the lives of four members of this close-knit farming community in Webster County, NE. My thoughts and my prayers continue to be with the victims, their loved ones, and the entire Blue Hill community during this very tragic time.

But through the sorrow of this terrible tragedy, a story has emerged that truly epitomizes the word ``hero.'' As one Nebraska newspaper said:

By the grace of God, not all of the kids riding the bus

home from school [have been] buried. But their fates could

have been much different, if not for two guardian angels.

There were five other students riding the bus on that day who, because of the selfless actions of two brave men, are still alive today. Ron Meyer and Phil Petr arrived on this horrific scene just moments after the crash. Immediately, the two bravely ran onto the burning bus, risking their own lives to save the lives of others. They swiftly and courageously pulled five children to safety. A nearby rancher who witnessed their actions said he is sure the five survivors would have encountered a much different fate had Ron and Phil not been there that day. They are guardian angels whose heroic actions will never be forgotten.

There were other heroes who arrived on the scene and acted quickly to provide care--first responders who also deserve to be commended. First responders risk their lives to save others each and every day, just as our gratitude to them should be expressed throughout the year. But special recognition is owed to average citizens who happen upon horrific scenes and take heroic action.

Although Ron and Phil would never ask for it, many in this community have called for their heroism to be recognized and to be honored, and I could not agree more. Their willingness to risk their own lives to save others serves as a source of inspiration for all of us.

I am honored to call them my fellow Nebraskans, and I want to personally thank them. I thank them for their courage and their selflessness.

Acknowledging their heroism in no way lifts the grief and the sorrow that gripped the community and our State after this crash.

I pray that God brings peace and healing to all those who have been affected. But because of Ron and Phil, my prayer is also a prayer of gratitude.

I thank God for these heroes. I know that no recognition can adequately convey the gratitude felt by the families of the five children whom they saved from that burning bus.

Mr. President, I stand before you today on behalf of the Blue Hill community and all of my fellow Nebraskans to offer my deepest appreciation to Ron Meyer and Phil Petr.

May God bless them and God bless all those affected by this terrible crash.

I thank the Chair.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a remarkable foster couple from Harrisburg, NE, whom I recently nominated to be 2012 `Angels in Adoption' recipients. Dave and Laura Whelchel are the parents of two grown biological children, Chance and Jenna, as well as four adopted children, Reuben, Josefina, Arielle and San Juan, who are siblings. They are hoping to finalize the adoption of a fifth sibling, Kayleigh, by the end of the year. Each of the adopted children has come into their home with special physical, occupational or speech therapy needs.

Dave and Laura's dedication to providing these children with the love and support they need is incredible. As I witnessed firsthand during a visit to their family farm in August, the Whelchels are doing an outstanding job ensuring their children are able to live full and happy lives.

But the Whelchels' kindness and compassion does not stop with their

children. Three years ago, the couple created Camp Grace, a summer camp for other children with special needs. Held monthly at the Whelchel farm, the camp is designed to help children work toward specific therapy goals. They also donate countless hours of their time coordinating with volunteers, therapists, and other families to ensure the camp's success.

It is an honor to nominate Dave and Laura as `Angels in Adoption'. The award, which honors those who have enriched the lives of foster and adopted children in the U.S., is a small token of appreciation for the love and compassion they have shown their children over the years. I could not think of a more deserving family for this award. My hope is that more families will follow the wonderful example set by the Whelchels by providing loving homes to deserving children.

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

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss an issue I have brought up before in the Senate that continues to trouble me.

Whenever I meet with farmers and ranchers in Nebraska, they often raise concerns about regulatory overreach. I hear about the need for agencies such as the EPA to provide a more predictable and commonsense regulatory environment. So today I am introducing a bill that will do exactly that. It stops the EPA's use of aerial surveillance of

agricultural operations for a period of 12 months--1 year.

Earlier this year, I began hearing about this issue from constituents who are worried about privacy concerns. Thus, a few of my colleagues and I wrote to Administrator Jackson in late May asking her several questions about EPA's practice of flying over livestock operations and taking pictures. We were curious about the scope of flights over agriculture operations in Nebraska and around the country. We asked how the agency selects targets for surveillance and whether any images of residences, land, or buildings not subject to EPA regulation were being captured.

Additionally, we asked a very fair question: We asked about the use of the images, where are they stored, how are they used, who are they shared with, and how long they would remain on file--all seemingly straightforward, fair, basic questions.

Well, to say the least, EPA has been less than forthcoming about the use of aerial surveillance. EPA has acknowledged aerial surveillance activities in Nebraska, Iowa, and West Virginia. But despite repeated requests, details concerning the national scope of this program and its management by EPA headquarters have not been disclosed.

You see, I believe the American public deserves open, straightforward, honest information about why EPA is flying over their land--not just in Nebraska but across the country.

Time and time again, farmers have consistently proven they are excellent stewards of the environment. They make their living from the land, and they are very mindful of maintaining it and protecting it and leaving it improved.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should ensure our waterways are clean and our air is safe. So I want to be very clear: This legislation does not affect EPA's ability to use traditional onsite inspections. But given EPA's track record of ignorance about agriculture, if not downright contempt for it, farmers and ranchers do not trust this agency, and they sure as heck do not approve of EPA doing low-altitude surveillance flights over citizens' private property.

So until EPA takes a more commonsense, transparent, open approach, we need to step on the brakes. This bill simply does that. It places a 1- year moratorium on EPA from using aerial surveillance. This will give the agency time to come clean about its activities nationwide and make the case that these flights are an appropriate use of agency authority and taxpayer money.

Unless the EPA does that openly, the level of trust between farmers and ranchers and the EPA will continue to erode. In the meantime, passage of this legislation will help provide our farmers and our ranchers and others in rural America with much needed regulatory certainty.

I offered an amendment on this issue during the recent farm bill debate. It got broad bipartisan support--56 votes. Ten of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle joined me in this effort, so it is not a partisan issue.

I urge my colleagues to continue their support of this effort to bring accountability and transparency to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss an issue I have brought up before in the Senate that continues to trouble me.

Whenever I meet with farmers and ranchers in Nebraska, they often raise concerns about regulatory overreach. I hear about the need for agencies such as the EPA to provide a more predictable and commonsense regulatory environment. So today I am introducing a bill that will do exactly that. It stops the EPA's use of aerial surveillance of

agricultural operations for a period of 12 months--1 year.

Earlier this year, I began hearing about this issue from constituents who are worried about privacy concerns. Thus, a few of my colleagues and I wrote to Administrator Jackson in late May asking her several questions about EPA's practice of flying over livestock operations and taking pictures. We were curious about the scope of flights over agriculture operations in Nebraska and around the country. We asked how the agency selects targets for surveillance and whether any images of residences, land, or buildings not subject to EPA regulation were being captured.

Additionally, we asked a very fair question: We asked about the use of the images, where are they stored, how are they used, who are they shared with, and how long they would remain on file--all seemingly straightforward, fair, basic questions.

Well, to say the least, EPA has been less than forthcoming about the use of aerial surveillance. EPA has acknowledged aerial surveillance activities in Nebraska, Iowa, and West Virginia. But despite repeated requests, details concerning the national scope of this program and its management by EPA headquarters have not been disclosed.

You see, I believe the American public deserves open, straightforward, honest information about why EPA is flying over their land--not just in Nebraska but across the country.

Time and time again, farmers have consistently proven they are excellent stewards of the environment. They make their living from the land, and they are very mindful of maintaining it and protecting it and leaving it improved.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should ensure our waterways are clean and our air is safe. So I want to be very clear: This legislation does not affect EPA's ability to use traditional onsite inspections. But given EPA's track record of ignorance about agriculture, if not downright contempt for it, farmers and ranchers do not trust this agency, and they sure as heck do not approve of EPA doing low-altitude surveillance flights over citizens' private property.

So until EPA takes a more commonsense, transparent, open approach, we need to step on the brakes. This bill simply does that. It places a 1- year moratorium on EPA from using aerial surveillance. This will give the agency time to come clean about its activities nationwide and make the case that these flights are an appropriate use of agency authority and taxpayer money.

Unless the EPA does that openly, the level of trust between farmers and ranchers and the EPA will continue to erode. In the meantime, passage of this legislation will help provide our farmers and our ranchers and others in rural America with much needed regulatory certainty.

I offered an amendment on this issue during the recent farm bill debate. It got broad bipartisan support--56 votes. Ten of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle joined me in this effort, so it is not a partisan issue.

I urge my colleagues to continue their support of this effort to bring accountability and transparency to the Environmental Protection Agency.

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

Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss a wholly predictable and foreseeable economic disaster. I ask why the Senate continues to waste valuable time while we continue barrelling toward a fiscal cliff.

In a little more than 5 months, the current tax rates are scheduled to expire for every single American, resulting in the largest tax increase in history.

It is hard to imagine this massive tax increase is what the President wants. Just 2 years ago, he warned that we absolutely should not raise taxes in a poor economy. Yet today the economy is actually in worse shape.

So what does the President do? He calls for raising taxes on job creators, on small business owners filing as individuals, on investment income, on all those things that actually drive economic prosperity and hiring.

Their favorite talking point claims that all those making more than $250,000 should just be taxed more. While those families reporting income of more than $250,000 may only make up about 2 percent of all tax returns, it is these citizens who are the owners of small businesses that employ 25 percent of America's workforce. These are the same small business owners that created two-thirds of the net jobs in the last decade.

I hear from small business owners in Nebraska every day, and they tell me if faced with a more expensive tax bill, they will be forced to cut costs elsewhere.

In fact, according to the global accounting firm Ernst & Young, the Democrats' tax plan would result in 710,000 fewer jobs compared to simply keeping the current rate the same for all Americans.

The economic wreckage resulting from the tax hike doesn't stop there. In the same study, Ernst & Young estimates these reckless policies will drive wages of hardworking Americans down by 1.8 percent.

Furthermore, investment is estimated to decrease 2.4 percent as the tax on dividends increases. Well, what is apparent here? What is apparent is that less investment means less economic activity, which means fewer jobs, and it is really that straightforward. It is really that simple.

The President and the Senate Democrats apparently disagree over just how much to increase our taxes on dividend income. It is one of the few areas where their plans are not in lockstep, but both plans increase the dividend tax rate nonetheless. While their rhetoric continues to lambaste the ultrawealthy, make no mistake, this tax increase will affect the vast majority of the middle class. When examining historical IRS data, it is revealed that 68 percent of all tax returns showing dividend income are from those Americans with incomes below $100,000.

While adding insult to injury, the President has proposed to increase taxes on the estate of deceased loved ones as well. My friends on the other side of the aisle not only pick up the President's proposal but they make it worse. Believe it or not, they want to tax even more estates at even higher rates than the President. It is astonishing, and unfortunately this reversal on the death tax will disproportionately impact agricultural States such as Nebraska.

In their opposition to the Democratic bill, the Nebraska Farm Bureau and the Nebraska Cattlemen state that allowing the estate tax exemption to fall to $1 million would subject the typical full-time farm or ranch to the increased estate tax rate of--get this--55 percent.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters from these two groups be printed in the Record.

According to the Tax Policy Center, the Senate Democrats' estate tax plan would hit over 48,000 estates with a $40.5 billion tax bill compared to an extension of the current rates. While an extension of current estate tax rates is not perfect--I believe it should be repealed permanently--it is far better than putting over 48,000 families, a large percent of them farmers and ranchers on the death tax rolls. I have said over and over again that death should not be a taxable event. Families should not have to sell the family business and lay off their employees to pay Uncle Sam a 55-percent tax rate on the value of the estate.

All of these ill-advised tax policies taken together add up to bad news for our economy and our country, bad news for our workers, and bad news for every American. The National Federation of Independent Business estimates that the tax increases would result in a U.S. economy that is 1.3 percent smaller than it is today, and that is an outcome for which none of us should strive.

So what is the alternative? Just last week the senior Senator from Washington laid out the Democrats' plan if they don't get their way on raising taxes: Hold the economy hostage and go over the fiscal cliff; make sure everybody's taxes go up by the largest amount in the Nation's history; let the $110 billion sequester for this year strip our military of the resources it needs to keep us safe and impact domestic programs; let the alternative minimum tax wreak havoc on our middle class, with the exemption actually falling below the median household income.

In Nebraska alone, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates for 2012 there will be over 134,000 potential AMT tax returns compared to 16,000 in 2009. All told, this fiscal cliff will cost us between 3 percent and 5 percent of our entire gross domestic product, trillions of dollars in destroyed wealth, and a CBO-predicted economic recession. That is the plan, and it is astonishing to me that the Democrats would go to these lengths just to raise taxes on our country's economic engine.

My friends on the other side of the aisle will claim that taxes must be raised to address the mammoth deficit. Make no mistake, attacking our deficit should be job No. 1. However, on actual analysis we see that the Democrats' claim is nothing but a mirage. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the difference between the Democrats' plan to increase taxes and a simple extension of all the current tax rates is not even enough to cover 5 days of our government spending. It is only three-tenths of 1 percent of our crushing $16 trillion national debt. This simply is not about our national debt or about deficits; it is about an ideological statement and nothing more.

After today's failed vote on these tax increases, it is my hope that we can get together and practice some common sense. Common sense would tell me, let's not raise taxes in a struggling economy. That used to be the President's position before he was up for reelection. Let's not punish our job creators and small business owners, let's not punish our senior citizens and other savers who rely on dividend income, and let's not hinder passing down family farms and ranches from one generation to the next. Let's extend the current rates for as long as it takes to get to work on comprehensive tax reform and actually solve the problems of our Tax Code. Let's get serious and start working on the business that Americans sent us here to do. A massive tax increase will drive our economy to its knees and bring about another recession. We can't afford that.

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

Mr. President, I am here to make another statement, but I do want to associate myself with what the two Senators had to say, the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Tennessee. I look at our assignment between now and the end of the year, and we have some monumental issues to tackle. In fact, they are so monumental that many are referring to the work that needs to be done as a fiscal cliff. Some are talking in the vein that we are going to cause another recession unless we come to grips with these issues.

I look at this week and so many weeks that have passed this year and nothing has been done. I am going to guess when this week is all said and done, we will probably take three votes. That seems unbelievable for the Senate. It doesn't have to be this way at all. We could be addressing the important issues that face our Nation. There isn't any reason we should not be addressing those issues. Let's debate bills, vote on them, and do the right thing for our country.

I thank the two Senators for their comments and I am pleased to be able to associate myself.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to remember a fallen hero, U.S. Marine Corps LCpl Hunter H.D. Hogan. Lance Corporal Hogan was killed in action while supporting combat operations in Afghanistan on June 23, 2012.

Lance Corporal Hogan cultivated a desire to serve our Nation at an early age, and he followed in his father's footsteps when he enlisted in the Marine Corps on October 26, 2009. He, like so many young marines, could have pursued other opportunities outside of the military, but he instead chose to take an oath of service to our great country. He was rightfully proud of this oath and remained faithful to the mission and to his brothers in arms.

The Hogan family laid their marine to rest in York, NE, on July 6, 2012. Lance Corporal Hogan served with honor and valor having been awarded the Purple Heart, Combat Action Ribbon, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal.

Hunter is mourned by his wife Brittney, his father, mother, grandparents, and so many others. I know his family is proud of him and will always remember his spirit and his quick wit. His sense of adventure and his enthusiasm for rodeo, hunting, and fishing will also be fondly remembered. Hunter's passion for life and those around him allowed him to be the best marine he could be.

Strong marines are not possible without the support of family. Hunter's family chose a quote by Senator Paul H. Douglas to describe their young marine's passion for the Corps.

Those of us who have had the privilege of serving in the

Marine Corps value our experience as among the most precious

of our lives. The fellowship of shared hardships and dangers

in worthy cause creates a close bond of comradeship. It is

the basic reason for the cohesiveness of Marines and for the

pride we have in our Corps and our loyalty to each other.

We hold our heads high when we speak of the strong tradition of military service in our great State of Nebraska. We are honored to call him one of our own, and I know Nebraskans across the State will provide his family with care and love during this very difficult time.

May God bless the Hogan family and all of our service men and women both home and abroad. LCpl Hunter Hogan, forever a marine, forever a cowboy, Semper Fidelis.

Mr. President, today marks one of the most historic and certainly highly anticipated Supreme Court decisions in a long time.

I would be less than candid if I didn't say I am enormously disappointed that the Court upheld the law in its individual mandate which requires all Americans to purchase government-approved insurance whether they choose to or don't choose to. I believe it is fundamentally wrong for the U.S. Government to intervene in the lives of Americans in this very direct way. However, the Supreme Court's role within our system of government is to interpret the Constitution, and they have spoken. So with the ruling now officially out, what is important is where we go from here.

The Court did not decide that this law is good policy. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts went out of his way to clarify this point. It is clear in my mind that we must do everything we can to repeal this flawed law because it is enormously bad policy.

While we have waited over 2 years for the final decision about this law's constitutionality, we haven't had to wait that long to learn why the law is bad for America. The law was a train wreck from the very beginning: backroom deals, empty promises, political tactics that epitomize what disgusts Americans about their government. Some of the law's leading supporters even admitted they hadn't read the 2,700-page bill. The Speaker acknowledged we are going to have to pass the law to see what is in it. My colleagues across the aisle hastily passed the bill on the notion that there were some gold nuggets in there, tucked inside the law, and that maybe Americans would think they were lucky enough to cash in. We have come to know nothing could be further from the truth.

After more than 2 years, there has been a lot of rain but not a single rainbow and certainly no pot of gold when it comes to this legislation. Instead, what we have seen is one broken promise after another.

Just last week, the administration's own Medicare Actuary reported national health care spending will increase at an average of more than 50 percent over the next decade. The same study estimated, in 2014, the increase in private health insurance premiums is expected to accelerate to 7.9 percent. But the startling fact is that is more than twice the increase Americans would have faced in the absence of the health care law.

This is just one of many studies that indicate the law does not bend the cost curve down as the President promised. It begs the basic question: Why would Congress pass a massive overhaul of our country's health care system that actually increases the cost of care? It is so ironic that the majority decided to call this health care law the Affordable Care Act. One can hardly argue that more people will receive better care under a plan that drives costs upward as well as puts Medicare on an unsustainable path.

The Medicare Actuary asserted in the most recent trustees report that the law could lead to significant access issues for beneficiaries under Medicare, and Medicare itself is estimated to be insolvent by 2024. Due to the cuts to Medicare and the health care law, he said: ``The prices paid by Medicare for health services are very likely to fall increasingly short of the cost of providing those services.''

He goes on to say: ``Severe problems with beneficiary access to care'' will occur.

That is just another way of saying, to put it very directly and simply, our seniors are going to find it harder and harder to find a doctor or a hospital that will accept them as patients. To put it simply, our seniors are going to have difficulty accessing medical care under this law.

The health care law perpetuates the problems within this very difficult system. It is clear that heavy-handed government solutions are not the answer, but that is exactly what this law creates. In this law, there are 159 new

boards, over 13,000 pages of new regulations, and it gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services more than 1,700 new or expanded powers. No one will convince me this act isn't a seizure of our government, of our health care system, and putting it under the power of government.

Americans don't want government bureaucrats diagnosing and prescribing their care. They want the freedom to choose an insurance plan that covers their needs and to simply see the doctor of their choice.

It seems the President even manipulated this sentiment, which is why he said no fewer than 47 different times: ``If you like your plan, you can keep it.'' He knew that pledge would help him gain support for his law, but, sadly, the American public was misled and his promise can't be kept.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates up to 20 million Americans could lose the insurance they get through work--the insurance they like and want to keep--because of this health care law. Families in 17 States, including my own State of Nebraska, no longer have access to child-only health insurance because of the mandates in this misguided legislation. That is not the only way the law will hurt hard-working American families. The Director of the CBO testified that the new law will mean 800,000 fewer jobs over the next decade.

The American people deserve more than a laundry list of flawed policies and empty pledges. Americans deserve step-by-step reform instead of rushed policy; transparent reforms, not a 2,700-page entangled mess; and an open debate, not a closed-door discussion and the backroom deals that were so necessary to get this flawed piece of legislation passed. More than anything, they deserve sound policy that delivers on the promises.

I will do everything I can to continue to push to repeal this misguided law and to push for policies that set us on the right course because the path we pave will define our future as a nation. There is no disputing that Medicare and Medicaid are two of the biggest drivers of our Nation's $15 trillion debt. So if we want to secure a sound future for our children and our grandchildren, we have to fundamentally reform these government programs, not double down on policies that will bankrupt them. In that same vein, we can't ignore our struggling economy. Instead, we need policies that promote business growth and job creation. I believe we can pass step-by-step reforms that confront these tough issues and policies that depart from a top-down, one-size- fits-all approach.

The issue of health care touches all of us at the deepest level. Whether it is a new life entering into our world, a tough diagnosis, a lifesaving surgery or care for a loved one in their final days, health care decisions should not be dictated by Washington. Families and the physician they trust need to be at the heart of the decisions that impact their health. The Supreme Court has spoken definitively about the constitutionality of this law, but Americans have spoken loudly and clearly when it comes to the sensibility of this process and of this policy. It is time to repeal it and put in place sensible reforms that truly do bring down costs.

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

Mr. President, today, on the 125th Anniversary of United Way of America, I wish to pay tribute to Nebraska's many United Way organizations. United Way is active in the communities of Beatrice, Columbus, Cozad, Crete, Fremont, Grand Island, Hastings, Kearney, Lexington, Lincoln, Nebraska City, Norfolk, North Platte, Omaha, Scottsbluff, Wayne, York, and others. The Nebraskans affiliated with these organizations work tirelessly every day to improve the lives of those around them.

For the past 125 years, United Way has mobilized resources from local businesses and individuals to identify and meet the needs of the communities they serve. Thanks to the leadership from local United Way organizations, communities in Nebraska have been better able to address significant social issues. The programs they support help those experiencing hunger, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, neglect, and many more challenges. In Nebraska, the United Way provides leadership and helping hands throughout our State.

I have had the privilege of working with United Way and the agencies they support as a county commissioner, city councilman, mayor, Governor, and now as a Member of the Senate. I have seen first hand the successes achieved by Nebraska's United Way offices, which have improved the lives of countless citizens across the State. I couldn't be more proud of their work.

It is an honor to mark this special day by acknowledging United Way offices across our State and thanking the many volunteers who contribute time, talent, and financial resources to improve Nebraska communities. I wish all of the United Way offices in Nebraska and across the Nation another 125 years of success in their mission to serve others.

Mr. President, given the EPA's recent track record with agriculture--if not downright contempt for it--farmers and ranchers simply don't trust the EPA. They could have done this program right and reached out to the congressional delegations in Nebraska and Iowa and said: Here is what we are doing. Here is the plan. They did not.

I found out about this accidentally. I have requested information--in fact, our entire delegation has--and the administrator has been nonresponsive. That is why the amendment is here. It is an amendment based on a lack of trust for the EPA. This maintains the status quo. This will change nothing. It will rubberstamp what they are doing.

I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and support the next amendment, which I will call up in due time.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2372 and ask for its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. President, low-altitude surveillance flights over farmers' and ranchers' private property has caused bipartisan concern, and it is happening--EPA is flying these flights. Senator Nelson and I and the entire Nebraska delegation wrote to Administrator Jackson saying, ``What is going on? What are you doing?'' Their response was kicked down to the Regional Director. It was incomplete. It was totally unacceptable.

This is not about drones, this is about flights over feed lots, trying to determine if there is a violation and then pursuing that action. What we are asking for is for the public to be advised of what they are doing. Until that happens, this amendment simply says: Stop. You can't do this anymore until you let us know how you are using this information and for what purpose.

I ask for support of the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I rise to take 10 seconds to support the amendment of my colleague from Nebraska. It keeps in place a program that has been in place since 1990. It is a good amendment.