Floor Statements

Mr. President, let me start this afternoon by thanking my colleague from Missouri for taking on this issue and putting this legislation together. Let me also thank my colleague for telling the real story of this legislation. It is critically important we understand the history that brings us here this afternoon and, ultimately, to a vote on this legislation I am proud to cosponsor.

My colleague just so ably pointed out that what has changed is, the Obama administration, working with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, took this important language out of this health care legislation. For decades--for decades--this important protection was in legislation, and it was supported by Democrats, Republicans, Independents, liberals, conservatives. That was the history of our country until all of a sudden this change came about where that conscience protection was taken out of the health care legislation that was passed a couple years ago.

But let's look back even further in our history. The first freedom in our Bill of Rights is the liberty to exercise any religion we might choose, or for that matter not participate in any religion whatsoever. That is what this United States of America is based upon, this concept that we have the freedom to choose what faith we will belong to, what teachings we will follow, and, as I said, we have the choice to not participate at all, if we choose, in this country.

Yet the President and my colleagues from across the aisle want to force--want to force--religious institutions, for the first time in the history of our country, to violate their strong moral convictions. And they go even further. They want to somehow shroud this and veil it as a woman's health issue.

Let me set the record straight. This debate is not about that, as some would have us believe. It certainly is not about contraceptives. What this debate is about is fundamental to our freedom as citizens of this great country. It is religious liberty we are talking about.

It is an American issue that dates back to our very Founders who looked at the war they had just fought and said to themselves: We are never going to allow our country to force us to attend a certain church or to participate in a certain faith--not at all. And it was written in one of our most sacred documents, the Bill of Rights. Yet the President of the United States is trampling on this religious freedom and attempting to convince Americans that it is something else.

His power grab is forcing religious institutions to go against their deeply held beliefs. If they stay true to their beliefs, the Congressional Research Service reports these religious insurers and employers may face Federal fines of $100 per day per plan.

So let me give an example of how that will work in my State. For a self-insured institution such as Creighton University in Nebraska, a Jesuit institution--I happen to have graduated

from there--they have about 6,000 health care plans. So the cost to Creighton University in Omaha, NE, to exercise their religious liberty will be an annual pricetag of $24 million. That is the price of exercising their religious liberty in the President's world. Unbelievable.

Well, I went on the Internet. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an open letter to the President that is being signed by women all over this country.

Women have signed this, and one of the things they say is, they are proud to work for institutions that contribute to their community.

Let me quote from that letter. They value ``the shared sense of purpose found among colleagues who choose their job because, in a religious institution, a job is . . . also a vocation.''

These women are Americans who believe this mandate by the Federal Government, interfering with religious liberty, is wrong.

I will wrap up my piece of this colloquy by again thanking the Senator from Missouri for his leadership in this area. The President has said he offered an accommodation. The accommodation is, woe, lo and behold, this is going to be free.

Now, I would like to know what legal authority he relies upon that the President could ever order anyone to offer a service or an item for free. He has no such authority. This is not the Soviet Union; this is the United States of America. We do not believe that for a moment. Of course we are going to be paying for this through our insurance premiums.

Well, my hope is we will read our Constitution and we will stand as a united front upholding religious freedom, which is being violated by this mandate.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I rise today to take a few minutes to comment on the bill that the Senate will soon be considering to state why I oppose the bill in its current form. I am speaking of the bill that we oftentimes refer to as the Transportation bill.

I do think this bill does some good things. I supported it coming out of the EPW Committee. It had very sound bipartisan support in that committee.

But there is a serious concern with the bill, a concern for all of us. Specifically, there is a provision in the bill that is what I would call an earmark. However, it is often referred to by our rule as a congressionally directed spending item. Let me again say, purely and simply, it is an earmark. That is why, even though I supported the bill in committee, I did feel very strongly about that provision and I felt compelled to vote against proceeding to the bill and that is why I am here today, filing an amendment.

This provision changes the purpose of an earmark that was included in the previous highway bill. Then the language goes on to do a second thing: It newly directs the money back to the same State where the earmarked project would have occurred, that being the State of Nevada. Let me repeat that. It takes an unspent earmark from a previous highway bill in Nevada and it replaces it with yet another earmark to the State of Nevada. I will go into further detail.

First, the bill identifies any unobligated balances associated with this earmark. The bill reads:

. . . any unobligated balances of amounts required to be

allocated to a State by section such and such of the SAFETEA

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

I ask unanimous consent to participate in a colloquy with my colleagues, Senators Blunt, Risch, Isakson, and Heller.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, we rise today to talk about the budget that was submitted by the President of the United States, actually within the last 24 hours. Despite a 2009 promise to literally cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, President Obama released a budget that, for the fourth year in a row, calls for a deficit in excess of $1 trillion. Unfortunately, this proposal is one more year of the same old story: more taxes, more spending, more borrowing, and yet another punt on the tough issues we as a Nation must face.

As a former Governor, I understand what it takes to balance a budget. Difficult choices do have to be made, even with programs that are popular. In 2001, when I was Governor of Nebraska, I closed a $220 million budget shortfall and didn't raise taxes. But $220 million is merely a drop in the bucket for the Federal budget that amounted to more than 7 percent in Nebraska. By comparison, if the President had submitted a budget that cut spending by 7 percent, he would be cutting more than $260 billion this year. That wasn't the last thing we had to do. With the post-9/11 economy, we called special session after special session to cut spending.

But instead of that, the President is projected to increase spending. Leadership is necessary and, sadly, this budget does not display it. Instead, America's balance sheet continues to drown in a sea of red ink for yet another year, driving our 2012 deficit to nearly $1.4 trillion. Instead of making tough choices about priorities, the President appears to be doubling down on more stimulus spending.

Let me give a few examples, and then I will invite my colleagues to join me: $2 billion in new tax credits for the production of advanced technology vehicles; $4 billion to extend and modify ``certain energy incentives which could include clean renewable energy bonds;'' $3 billion to encourage investments in advanced energy manufacturing projects; $4.7 billion for new spending to strengthen the teaching profession despite GAO finding 82 duplicative and wasteful teacher quality programs. When we add it all, we are presented with yet another budget that contains the largest tax increase in U.S. history. It raises taxes by more than $1.8 trillion. I could go on and on. This is simply a situation where we have seen this budget before, and it doesn't improve.

I will turn to my colleague Senator Blunt, from the State of Missouri, who has worked on these budgets before, and I will ask him to offer some insights of what he sees in this budget and where it is leading our country, in his opinion.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for laying out what this budget is all about and the problems we are seeing.

Senator Isakson has been a leader in trying to reform the budget process.

I say to Senator Isakson, I would like you to offer thoughts on what you see in this budget and some ideas on how we can improve this situation we find ourselves in with the President's budget wanting more taxing, more borrowing, more spending.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by Senator Isakson. I wish to take a moment to follow up on his comments relative to Medicare and Social Security. Then I would ask Senator Blunt to offer a few words on where we go from here, what do we anticipate we have to do to set the ship of state on the right course, if you will.

But let me speak to the issue of Medicare and Social Security. Senator Isakson could not be more right. When you get paid, you can literally go to your paycheck stub and you can see the amount of money that is being withheld out of your paycheck--throughout your life--for Social Security benefits and for Medicare benefits.

When these programs were set up, thereabouts, a group was put together--they were referred to as trustees--and they basically did a fair analysis of where these programs were and where they were headed. Every year, they put out a report, and we will be getting another annual report in the not too distant future. But I think we all know what the report is going to say. The report is going to say that in the vicinity of about 2024, if not a bit sooner, Social Security literally is going to be insolvent. It is also going to say Medicare is literally in a position where it will be upside down financially sooner than that. The greatest challenge between the two, obviously, is Medicare.

What does that mean to people who are currently beneficiaries or about to retire and planning on these items being there for them? Well, what it means is, that plan could be in serious jeopardy.

It is not because Mike Johanns woke up last night and said that or dreamt it or thought about it. It is because people who are empowered to look at Social Security and Medicare have studied it very closely, have looked at the financial pieces of this, and have come to this conclusion.

Now let's examine the President's budget. What plan does he have to protect Medicare or Social Security? Well, he does not have a plan. These are not easy issues. I am not arguing here today this is easy to take on. But what I am saying to the American people is, if you study this budget or any other budget submitted by this President, he is doing nothing to arrest literally our progress toward these very important programs becoming insolvent. If there was ever an area in this budget where we need Presidential leadership, it is right here.

I would ask Senator Blunt for his thoughts. The Senator has studied these issues over the years and has offered great insight. Where do we go from here? What are the Senator's thoughts in terms of this budget and how we get back on track?

Mr. President, I anticipate Senator Heller will probably seek the floor. But this concludes our colloquy.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the developments of the past few weeks which, in my view, have been incredibly tragic but maybe, on the other hand, reassuring. On the one hand, it is tragic that our own government launched an attack on first amendment rights. The President launched this assault unapologetically in the black-and-white print of a rule that clearly restricts religious liberties. It says contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs must be provided free of charge to women. What the President did not anticipate by his rule was the backlash it would generate.

It is reassuring, on the other hand, to know that Americans will make their voices heard when their constitutional rights are being trampled. For the first time in many years, people of many different faiths, as well as the defenders of the Constitution, have found a unifying rallying cry. They are sending the message that enough is enough; it is time to stop this administration's march into every single facet of our lives. At issue is one of the very basic rights in this country. It is one of the basic rights this country was founded to protect. It is the right to freely exercise religion--a right this President pledged to uphold when taking the oath of office.

Many Americans were lulled into complacency in 2009 by promises that apparently the President did not intend to uphold. Back then I came to the Senate floor to address this identical issue. In the thick of the very contentious health care debate, I urged my pro-life colleagues and the pro-life community to stand up against the health care bill that was being considered here in the Senate. I pointed out that the Hyde amendment, which prohibits taxpayer dollars from being used for abortion, was absolutely absent in the bill, something that now appears to be no accident whatsoever. On that day I shared the National Right to Life's very real concerns that the bill ``tries to conceal that unpopular reality with layers of contrived definitions and hollow bookkeeping requirements.'' Unfortunately, though, empty promises that the bill respected life were enough to convince my presumably pro-life colleagues to support the bill. After all, they had heard the promises straight from the President's mouth.

Remember when the President told Americans ``under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and Federal conscience laws will remain in place.'' Congress ignored the warnings, charged forward, blurry eyed, voting in the middle of the night, and passed the health care bill that we all now know violates the very conscience rights the President himself by his own words promised to protect.

As the law is being put into place, we are truly heading into uncharted waters for this Nation. On Friday, after weeks of criticism, the President announced a so-called compromise. We were told by his Chief of Staff that it will be that way or it will be the highway. So what is the compromise? It would still force every plan to offer free contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs, even plans offered by religious organizations with deeply held religious beliefs.

The President claims religious employers with objections won't technically be required to offer the coverage because insurance companies will be forced to offer it free. What? Are we, as Americans, expected to believe that the many religious organizations paying the employer's share of the health care costs are not paying for these services? What kind of accounting gimmick is that? What kind of sleight of hand is that?

The President is blinded by his ideology. This fight is about religious and moral beliefs. It is not about accounting. What we have witnessed this past week is another attempt to hide the unpopular reality with layers of misleading rhetoric and hollowed promises. The truth? The truth is that many individuals who object to contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs as a matter of religious principle will still have to provide them and pay for them. Don't fool yourself; they are not going to be free. Drug companies don't walk in and give away free drugs. Pharmacists don't dispense them free. Of course, the cost will be passed along to every employer and every American in the form of premiums that we pay. Calling these services free is flat wrong. There is a cost and, unfortunately, it is a high one at that. They come at the cost of our religious freedoms.

The administration's position is that it can force insurers to provide contraceptive coverage for ``free'' because the drugs are cheaper than the cost of being pregnant. Our government said that at the very highest level. That logic is unprecedented and it is downright disturbing. Who is to say that in days to come the administration won't order health plans to cover abortion free on the premise that it is cheaper than the cost of prenatal care, birth, and caring for human life? The same twisted logic could apply for physician-assisted suicide and a whole array of controversial procedures.

Many out there may try to refute this by repeating the President's claim that the law prohibits mandated abortions, but that same claim promised to protect the religious liberties he is now forcing many to violate. Well, many of us will not sit idly by and watch this unprecedented effort, and I am not alone. The President should listen to the country. The gimmicks of the 2009 bill may have put some to sleep. This time Americans are not being fooled. Americans of all faiths, all beliefs, of different views on a whole variety of topics share a love for their Constitution and the rights embodied in that Constitution. Well, they are awake now and their eyes are fully open.

As a Catholic myself, I could not be more proud of the Catholic bishops for standing strongly. Their statement rejecting the President's smoke-and-mirrors compromise is compelling and it is spot on. The bishop said:

. . . today's proposal continues to involve needless

government intrusion into the internal governance of

religious institutions and to threaten government coercion of

religious people . . . to violate their most deeply held

convictions.

And they go on to say:

In a Nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and

its founding principle, we should not be limited to

negotiating within these parameters. The only complete

solution . . . is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these

objectionable services.

Yes, we were told by the President's Chief of Staff negotiating is over, it will now be our way or the highway.

Well, the bishops responded. The bishops called the President's attempt to appease them unacceptable. Yes, America has been awakened and now Congress must act on their objections.

There is legislation waiting to be debated that would protect the religious liberties granted in our Constitution. The legislation introduced by Senator Roy Blunt holds President Obama to his promises. This legislation continues the 200-year tradition of this great Nation ensuring those who believe in the sanctity of life are not forced to have a hand in someone else's death. It protects conscience rights across the board. There is a bottom line and the bottom line is this: If President Obama is allowed to dictate to religious organizations what beliefs they will be allowed to hold or not to hold, then this country we all love will be a much different place and it will be a much different place for our children and grandchildren.

If the President succeeds, then our Constitution is no longer the defining document of a great Nation. Well, we do know the position of this administration, and I stand here today to categorically reject it.

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

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about an issue of paramount importance to our country--the issue of religious freedom. Our great Nation was founded on religious freedom. This liberty is at the very core of our government. It has been a significant part of our heritage since this land was first settled, and it is a freedom that sets us apart from many countries around the globe.

The Framers of our Constitution rightfully recognized an individual's religious liberty and conscience is above any regulation, any legislation. One of the chief authors of that guiding document, James Madison, declared:

Conscience is the most sacred of all property.

Thomas Jefferson said:

No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man

than that which protects the rights of conscience against the

enterprises of the civil authority.

These fundamental values are a part of the fabric of this great Nation. It is no coincidence it is the first freedom in the Bill of Rights. It is a core value. It is an inalienable right. So that means, as public servants, it is our utmost duty to protect this American freedom.

When I was sworn in as a Senator, I--as my colleagues did--took an oath to uphold the Constitution. We all believe strongly in that oath. I take seriously my commitment to uphold the values and the freedoms our forefathers fought to establish and that generations of heroes have died defending.

That is why today I am devastated to see this very freedom, the heart of our Constitution, being so completely ignored. The President has taken an unprecedented step in the wrong direction, grossly misusing authority to implement the new health care law. This administration has refused to exempt religious institutions that serve the public good from mandates of the law that go against their strong beliefs and their values, and the values of our Nation.

Last August, in an interim final rule, the Department of Health and Human Services announced what free preventive services all new health insurance plans would be required to provide under the law, and that those services must include contraceptives and controversial drugs, such as the so-called morning-after pill.

With that mandate, the agency included a supposed religious exemption but, upon reading that, it was clear that was simply unacceptable. It is so narrow that the vast majority of religious hospitals and universities, businesses, social services, and charities are still, very clearly, required by law to comply with the mandate.

Many of these organizations have strong faith-based missions and deeply held convictions. Yet they don't fall under the exemption. In other words, their government is compelling Americans to act against their constitutionally protected moral and religious convictions.

Since that announcement, hundreds of religious organizations have raised their voices, and I have heard from countless Nebraskans. I held a roundtable back in Nebraska where this was the topic of discussion.

Twenty-six of my colleagues joined Senator Hatch and me in sending a letter to the administration condemning this sweeping mandate. We asked them to redraft the regulation so it is consistent with longstanding constitutional principles.

Despite these strong efforts, just recently we learned that our passionate concerns had been dismissed. Very disappointingly, the administration has announced that they will move forward with the August interim rule. Under the guise of compromise, they announced that religious organizations would have an additional year before the mandate was enforced; in other words, after election day.

The head of the Diocese of Lincoln, a man I have great admiration for, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, called the administration's extension an ``act of mockery.''

Americans are not fooled by this nonsensical extension. The issue is not that religious groups have time to comply. That is not the issue. It is that they are being forced to provide coverage that goes against their conscience, their religious beliefs, their moral beliefs.

Bishop Bruskewitz went on to warn ``our American religious liberty is in grave jeopardy.''

The bottom line is that by issuing this decision, this administration has ignored the most sacred of all American freedoms.

Just a week before this announcement, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the core constitutional principle of religious liberty in its Hosanna-Tabor decision. The court held that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose their leaders without government interference. Yet the administration has clearly come out on the other side of our Constitution.

During the health care debate, we heard something vastly different. The President repeatedly promised the opposite. He pledged that the new health

care law would not weaken long-held life and conscience protections. In his public statements about the health overhaul, he vowed ``Federal conscience laws would remain in place.'' He even issued an Executive order where he stated that ``longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience will remain intact.''

Many of us--myself included--during the health care debate warned that the Executive order was just window dressing to get votes and would do nothing to protect life in matters of conscience.

While supporters of the bill echoed the President's promise, I spoke on the Senate floor--once in November and again in March--warning Americans that they should not be fooled by hollow promises, and I urged my pro-life colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous policy.

Two years after the law's passage, the truth behind the administration's priorities has been revealed. The President has, regrettably, punted the implementation of this controversial mandate until after the election. So now many religious organizations are forced to face two options: act against their convictions or drop health care coverage altogether. This decision comes from an administration that granted over 1,700 health plans with waivers from the law's major provisions, many of those to unions. A total of 4 million people, including select businesses and unions, have benefited from the waiver process. The administration has gone out of its way to guide its friends around the onerous mandates of this flawed policy. Yet this same administration is unwilling to protect a fundamental constitutional freedom by simply crafting a reasonable exemption for religious organizations.

Would Presidents Thomas Jefferson or James Madison have forced vast swaths of society to take action against their conscience? The answer is a resounding and obvious no. This political posturing is obvious, and it is appalling. This political maneuvering comes at a heavy cost for many Americans; it is a breach of values and beliefs. It runs counter to the very core of our identity as Americans.

Never before has the Federal Government required that individuals provide a product that violates their conscience.

Many Americans are questioning what will come next. They recognize that other strongly held beliefs could also be compromised.

I am not alone in being deeply troubled by this administration's complete disregard of the liberties in our Constitution. It is these liberties that make our country great.

I am a cosponsor of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act introduced by my colleague Senator Blunt. This legislation would reverse the administration's massive overstep and ensure that all conscience rights are protected. I will do everything in my power to push this to a vote. We must act to right this wrong. We must ensure that America's values are not compromised. We must protect religious liberty. We all took an oath to do so. I am confident that, with prayer and persistence, we can reverse this course.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments that have been offered by my colleagues from South Dakota and North Dakota. They absolutely have it right in terms of the importance of constructing this pipeline. There is no question that we are in a dire situation in this Nation. We need the jobs, we need the oil, and this pipeline can take a significant step forward in both regards.

I think the pipeline will be a huge help in those areas. But let me start by noting that I was a cosponsor of the first Keystone bill. I am also a cosponsor of the bill that Senators Hoeven, Lugar, and Vitter introduced just this past Monday, the bill we are talking about today.

Here is a very important point for my State. In both cases, and specifically in reference to this bill, the effort was specifically crafted to safeguard the route selection process that is occurring in Nebraska. I thank my colleagues for recognizing that work and recognizing that Nebraska has a process that will near completion this August or September. They have worked very hard to take into account our issues, and their bill recognizes that the Nebraska effort will continue.

They decided in our State--the Governor, the legislature, and TransCanada--to work on an alternative to the proposed route. Recognition occurred that the route through Nebraska involved some very sensitive land--the Sand Hills--and a very sensitive water supply--the Ogallala aquifer. The Governor called a special session, and, as we do in Nebraska, everybody sat down and said: How do we solve this problem?

So they came to an agreement that the best way to solve the problem was to do an environmental impact statement, which will be no cost to the Federal Government. It will be paid for by Nebraskans. That was part of the provision of this agreement. And TransCanada agreed they would work to reroute the pipeline through our State. Everybody shook hands. We are now in agreement. Our problem is solved in Nebraska.

For months and months, the Federal Government has been saying to the State of Nebraska: You have the power to route this pipeline through your State. And that is exactly what we are doing. So this legislation recognizes that agreement and says: Great, we are going to allow Nebraska to move forward. But very wisely this legislation also recognizes there is no need whatsoever for any delay on the remainder of this pipeline. This was the only segment--and it is a handful of miles in our State--that anybody was contesting. So why not issue the permit? Why not get the project going?

My colleagues worked very hard on coming up with a solution, and their solution works. It says: Construction can begin immediately. Why? Because, as my colleague from North Dakota has explained well, Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate foreign commerce. This bill exercises that power in a thoughtful, deliberate, and careful way. It says: Look, this project has gone through 3 years of study and analysis. It specifically notes in this legislation the part regarding Nebraska will be solved, as the Federal Government has been saying for months, by Nebraska officials, but that we can go forward and start construction elsewhere.

So what is holding up the creation of these jobs? What is holding up our ability to get more oil from places such as North Dakota and a friendly ally such as Canada, versus a very unfriendly ally in Hugo Chavez in Venezuela? What is holding that up? What could possibly be holding that up? Well, the simple answer to that question is, the President of the United States is holding it up.

The President is in a bind. The environmentalists have declared war on the oil sands in Canada. They do not want the pipeline because they do not want the oil sands. On the other hand, unions want to build the pipeline. They want the jobs, and thoughtfully so. So this is a time where Congress does need to step in and exercise our constitutional powers. This is nothing unusual. In fact, there was a recent opinion by the Congressional Research Service which noted the Congress has the power to do exactly what this legislation is doing.

I will wrap up my comments today and yield back the time to the Senators from South Dakota and North Dakota and say this: This is a win-win situation for everybody. It is a win because we create jobs. It is a win for our country because we are trying in every way possible to get the Federal Government to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Maybe the only person who it is not a win for is President Obama in his reelection. But this is a case where we need to put national interest ahead of November.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that was thoughtfully crafted. It is the right approach. I thank them for their sensitivity to the process going on in the State of Nebraska.

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

Mr. President, I am very pleased today to rise in support of a man who has proven himself worthy to serve as a Federal judge on the U.S. district court.

Justice John Gerrard has experience, integrity, and respect for the Constitution--all of which are necessary for someone serving on our Federal bench.

He has earned the respect and the admiration of the people of Nebraska. He consistently receives top ratings from the Nebraska State Bar Association, and the people of Nebraska have expressed their confidence in him not once, not twice, but three times, voting to retain him on the bench.

Justice Gerrard has authored hundreds of opinions throughout his 16 years as a member of the Nebraska Supreme Court. These decisions reveal with clarity his philosophy regarding the powers and limitations of a judge. They reflect his commitment to adhere to the Constitution and the laws of our great Nation.

When asked about judicial restraint after his nomination to the U.S. district court, Justice Gerrard responded:

I firmly believe that a judge should rely on the admissible

evidence and applicable law (and nothing else) when rendering

a decision.

He further responded:

I do not believe a judge should consider his or her own

values or policy preferences in determining what the law

means--and I have never done so at any time in my judicial

career.

This unequivocal statement says a lot. Justice Gerrard knows that his more than 450 opinions are a matter of public record and that they are open to everyone's scrutiny. He has welcomed that. He has welcomed it with humility.

You will not hear him boast about being the youngest person ever appointed to my home State's high court, nor will you hear him boast about his successful years as a private attorney and city attorney--and they were successful. He is absolutely unassuming. He is reflective and he is articulate. He speaks with great reverence about the oath he took to uphold the Constitution.

I did not know Justice Gerrard prior to his appointment to the Nebraska Supreme Court, but he quickly developed a reputation as a disciplined judge who renders very well researched opinions.

I believe Justice John Gerrard is a worthy member to join the U.S. district court, and so I stand here today urging my colleagues to vote in favor of his confirmation.

I would also like to take a moment to talk about the process that brought us here this afternoon. In this regard, I would like to offer my appreciation and thanks to my colleague from Nebraska, the senior Senator, Ben Nelson. Senator Nelson called me before this nomination was made and asked for my input. I took that opportunity to sit down with Judge Gerrard and to talk to him. After our meeting and knowing what I knew about the justice, it was my decision to support his nomination to the U.S. district court. In fact, I would say, if I had total control of this nomination, I would do it all over again.

This is a fine man. This is a man who I hope will have strong bipartisan support this afternoon when we vote on making him a U.S. district judge. He is a good man, and he deserves a strong bipartisan vote. He is going to adhere to the laws of our Nation with integrity, humility, and a strict adherence to the law.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the leader's comment and his question. The leader is absolutely right. The people of Nebraska, through their elected officials, have worked with the company building this pipeline in that they have resolved their differences.

The reason I support this legislation and have decided to be a cosponsor of the legislation is that this legislation respects the Nebraska process. It says there will be a process in Nebraska where we will site the pipeline in the best place. This legislation says that is fine. But what this legislation also acknowledges is, on the entire rest of the pipeline outside of the State of Nebraska, this is ready to be built today.

The President of the United States has had 3 years of background study and extensive environmental study, as the leader has pointed out, and nothing is going to change outside of the State of Nebraska. So work can begin today. There is just one person holding up that work. That is the President of the United States. With the stroke of a pen, he can turn this project loose. It will respect what is going on in Nebraska. Workers can be hired, the pipeline can be built, and those jobs can be literally provided today.

So I support this legislation. I am proud to be here this morning to say that and to thank the Senator from North Dakota, the minority leader, and all others who have worked with us to solve this problem. The problem is solved. We are ready to create the jobs. It is my hope the President will announce that he is ready to proceed to create these jobs for American workers.

I have worked on this issue for a number of months-- actually, a couple of years. Here is the situation: Unions are ready to go to work. I talk to the locals in Nebraska on a regular basis, and they talk about unemployment numbers that are staggering, in the double-digits, which, in our State, is remarkable because we have an unemployment rate of 4.2 percent.

The unions are ready to go to work, bringing their skills and their talents to bear. The leader's observation is absolutely right.

For the environmentalists, on the other hand, it is not the pipeline, it is not the location, it is that they do not want the tar sands development to occur. So the President is on the horns of a dilemma. Part of his base, the unions, are saying: Create the jobs. There is already a pipeline. Let's go out there and do this in the most environmentally sensitive way we possibly can.

On the other hand, the environmentalists are saying: No, Mr. President. They have circled the White House. They have done all of these things. Well, the President solved this dilemma he finds himself in, in my judgment, by announcing he would just delay this until after the election.

Well, in response to the leader's question, the Canadian Government has already indicated that if the United States is not a reliable purchaser and transporter of this commodity, they will have to look to other parts of the world, for example, China, to sell this product.

This will not stop the development in that area. In fact, it will push the development to a part of the world where the refinery process might take place with fewer environmental standards and, therefore, cause more environmental problems than if we build this pipeline and solve it. That is why from the very beginning I have said: Look, I am not opposed to the tar sands development. I am not even opposed to the pipeline in our State, now that we have solved the problem.

As I said, there is one person who can create these jobs today. That is the President of the United States. With the Prime Minister with the President, it would be a perfect opportunity to say: We do not have to wait until after the election. Let's create these jobs today. Let's put Americans to work.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great American military leader from Nebraska, Colonel Randall L. Koehlmoos, U.S. Army.

Colonel Koehlmoos died in Jakarta, Indonesia, where he was the Chief of the Office of Defense Cooperation at our U.S. Embassy.

Officers in the U.S. Army have many roles. We most often recognize those who lead soldiers in combat. Others are assigned to protecting and promoting vital American interests throughout the world. During a notable career, Colonel Koehlmoos served with equal skill and commitment in both roles.

His life of public service began early when a high school art teacher invited him to attend a National Guard drill. Randy was hooked. After joining the Nebraska Army National Guard, he attended the University of Nebraska and earned an officer's commission through the ROTC program. He spent much of his early career with the famed 82nd Airborne Division, where he became a master parachutist with over 100 jumps. He led a platoon during the 1991 gulf war and later a company during NATO operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The diplomatic side of the colonel's career emerged in the 1990s. Not satisfied with what many consider easy assignments in U.S. Embassies, he immersed himself in history, culture, and language. He would become fluent in four foreign languages and attend the Pakistan Army Staff College. A crowning achievement for Colonel Koehlmoos--beyond leading soldiers in combat--was writing a major article about relations between the United States and Pakistan. His article, titled ``Positive Perceptions to Sustain the U.S.-Pakistan Relationship,'' was published in the prestigious Army War College quarterly Parameters.

The decorations and badges earned during his distinguished service speak to his dedication and his skill: Defense Superior Service Medal, Bronze Star, NATO Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism, Meritorious Unit Citation, and several foreign nation awards. He was perhaps most proud of having earned the Master Parachutist Badge.

Colonel Koehlmoos was known to be a no-nonsense individual. He was always focused on the mission. But Randy had a soft spot. An unrelenting spiritual love of family dwelled inside this stoic, professional Army officer. His wife Tracey and his sons Robert and Michael and David meant absolutely everything to him. The colonel's larger family extended through his parents Larry and Karen Koehlmoos of Norfolk, Nebraska, to friends and colleagues around the world who revered his strength, compassion and leadership.

Today, I ask that God be with the family of Colonel Randall Koehlmoos. Their faith is strong, and I pray it brings them peace at this very difficult time. And may God bless all those serving in uniform and bless their families.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Recently, the Des Moines Register reported that an Iowa- based insurance company has decided to exit the health insurance market, abandoning insurance sales directly to individuals and families. So what is the net effect of all of that? Thirty-five thousand policyholders will lose their insurance. It calls to mind the famous promise by the President: If you like your plan, you can keep it.

The story doesn't stop there. It has an even more profound impact on the lives of real people. The impact goes on. One hundred ten employees will lose their jobs. Seventy of those employees are in Nebraska. That calls to mind Speaker Pelosi's broken promise: The law will create 4 million jobs--400,000 jobs almost immediately.

The driving factor for all of this is a Health and Human Services regulation required by the health care law which micromanages how insurance companies can spend their revenues.

Unfortunately, this job loss in Nebraska is not an anomaly. A recent survey of nearly 2,400 independent health insurance agents and brokers from all over came to this conclusion. One month after this HHS regulation took effect, more than 70 percent had experienced a decline in their revenues. And, more shocking, nearly 5 percent had lost their jobs.

The Government Accountability Office reported that most of the insurers they interviewed were reducing individuals' commissions. These are not the big insurance companies that were railed against in the health care debate. These are not the big insurance companies that are being squeezed. The good folks who are being squeezed are the mom-and- pop agencies that we find on Main Street throughout the United States. Yes, these are the folks we go to to support the local football team, the local high school, the local 4-H club, whatever the civic cause may be. And yet, with unemployment hovering around 9 percent, the health care law puts the hammer on these people. I reached the conclusion long ago that the health care law is bad for job creation and it is bad for keeping your job.

The Des Moines-based insurance company's CEO's job loss, according to him, was:

A fairly predictable consequence of the regulation.

UBS Investment Research called the health care law:

The biggest impediment to hiring . . . which has the added

drawback of straining State and Federal budgets.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses said:

Small business owners everywhere are rightfully concerned

that the unconstitutional new mandates, countless rules and

new taxes in the health care law will devastate their

businesses and their ability to create jobs.

What we are seeing with this law is a massive amount of overregulation. According to a recent Wells Fargo-Gallup small business poll, government regulations are the most important problem facing our small business owners. If we just focus again on the health care law, that legislation alone has resulted in 10,000 pages of new Federal regulations and notices--10,000 pages. How could any small business comply?

The employer mandate penalizes employers for growing. It is as simple as that. It forces employers who do not provide acceptable coverage to pay a penalty of $2,000 per full-time employee. But, you see, the penalty is applied to firms with more than 50 employees. And as a small business owner in the Bellevue, NE, area recently explained to me:

I'm not growing my business over 50 employees. I don't want

to deal with your health care law.

Well, as I mentioned, this discussion starts, at least today, with that article in the Des Moines Register.

With me today is the very respected Senator from the State of Iowa, Senator Grassley. I would ask Senator Grassley, what impact does he see arising out of this health care law in his State and, even more broadly, across this country?

Mr. President, I thank Senator Grassley for this explanation of what this law is doing and the impact it is having. Today, of course, we are starting our discussion with the article from the Des Moines Register which talked about the regulatory impact. But we cannot forget there are other pieces to this law that

have just as severe an impact. I would like to spend a minute or two talking about the destructive taxes that are in this legislation.

When we add it all up, the new health care law basically requires new taxes of about $\1/2\ trillion--not to pay down the national debt, not to solve the Nation's debt woes but to create a new entitlement. The Treasury Department's Inspector General for Tax Administration has looked at the impact of the health care law on the Tax Code and said this: ``The law is the largest set of tax law changes in 20 years.''

That is no small undertaking when we think about all that has happened over the last couple of decades, that we ended up with an impact on the Tax Code that is the largest set of tax law changes in 20 years, according to the Treasury expert who looked at this. There are 42 separate provisions adding to or amending the Internal Revenue Code in the health care law. So much of this law was put together in the last days of this debate, people were scrambling around trying to read it and understand it and get information out to their constituents.

Speaker Pelosi said: We will probably have to pass this law to figure out what is in it. And we are now figuring out what is in it, and it is so much more than a health care law. There are 42 separate provisions that add to or amend the Internal Revenue Code.

The Boston Globe weighed in on this. They pointed out the 2.3-percent excise tax on medical device suppliers, according to the Globe, ``will force industry leaders to lay off workers and curb the research and development of new medical tools.'' There is no question about it. When we add up the tax law changes, the impact from a regulatory standpoint and the other provisions of this law, this is not going to result in the promised jobs that Speaker Pelosi spoke of. It is a job killer.

If we look at what this law is doing, it will actually shrink the labor force, actually create a disincentive to work or to receive a pay raise. I referenced earlier in my comments a small business owner in the Bellevue, NE, area. I was sitting in a Business Roundtable a little more than a year ago. We were just going around the room, and I was listening to small businesses describe to me some of the challenges they face.

A woman, a small business owner, said to me: Mike, we have studied this health care law every which way we can. I am right on the edge of having 50 employees. I am told if I go over 50 employees, I am now subject to all of the ramifications of the health care law. After looking at this I have decided I will not grow my business beyond 50 employees. I do not want to deal with this health care law.

Her discussion with me has stuck with me all of these months. Why is it that Washington would actually pass legislation that would discourage her from hiring additional employees to grow her business? It makes no sense whatsoever. Why are we here in Washington creating a disincentive for the small business owner? Why are we costing Americans jobs?

The Congressional Budget Office has looked at this legislation. They have come to the conclusion that the American labor supply will be reduced by 100,000 workers. The CBO quote is this:

The law will encourage some people to work fewer hours or

to withdraw from the labor market.

The more we learn about this health care law, the more we come to realize this is flawed policy. It passed and it was signed into law by the President of the United States, but it goes beyond flawed policy. It impacts real people who are trying to make a real living.

My comments today started with a story about 50 Nebraskans who lost their jobs or are about to lose their jobs because of the health care law. I am concerned that it is not going to stop there; that as employers are more and more burdened with the thousands of pages of regulations, they will come to realize their best strategy is to try to figure out how to deal with these new requirements and they will pull back on hiring, which is exactly what we do not want to have happen in this economy.

With that, I conclude my remarks and our colloquy today.

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