Mike Johanns

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about another example of an EPA that, I believe, is out of step with American agriculture. EPA continues to pursue regulations that would require farmers to file for an additional permit if they want to apply pesticides, while just last month EPA Administrator Jackson mentioned ``the critical work that farmers are doing to protect our soil, air, and water resources.'' Yet the EPA continues, I believe, to handcuff our farmers and our ranchers with very stringent new regulations but still expects them to do all they can to feed a hungry world. Time and time again, farmers have consistently proven to be excellent stewards of the environment. They make their living from the land, and they are very mindful of maintaining and protecting and improving it. I speak from experience. I grew up on a farm. Unfortunately, we have watched organizations use the courts to twist laws against American agricultural production. A Democratic Congressman from California recently noted that EPA ``often pursues a course of agency activism.'' He points out that EPA is using the settlement of lawsuits to give them jurisdiction over issues that may not be allowed under existing law. More and more we are seeing important policy decisions that impact agriculture arise not from the legislative process, where it should arise from, but from the litigation process where a lawsuit settlement results in policy decisions being made. In January 2009 a court overturned the normal practice of allowing farmers to apply pesticides as long as they complied with labeling requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which is known as FIFRA. The Sixth Circuit Court ruled that EPA doubly regulate pesticide applications under FIFRA and the Clean Water Act. Well, at least 25 Senate and House Members, including myself, supported an amicus brief urging review of the court's very ill-advised decision. But, instead, the Obama administration chose to wave the white flag, ignoring the science and caving to activists. They urged the Supreme Court not to hear the case and to let the ruling stand. For years EPA managed pesticide permitting within established environmental and safety requirements. Yet the administration refused to defend what was a very established, longstanding approach. The EPA asked for a 2-year delay to write the permit and set up a compliance regime. They moved forward with onerous permitting requirements for our producers that will provide no environmental gain. This would subject the pesticide applicators to new and duplicative requirements--a distinct shift in how the EPA regulates pesticides. It created a whole new world. This additional permitting is now inefficient, it is unnecessary, and I would argue it is inappropriate for agriculture. EPA's permitting requirements also present a challenge to local public health officials who work to control mosquitoes and prevent the spread of disease. The American Mosquito Control Association estimates that complying with the additional regulation could cost each pesticide user at least $200,000 and potentially $600,000 in California alone. The dual permit requirement may reduce the availability of pesticides proven to control mosquito populations. Thus, the ability of public health officials to control mosquitoes and the spread of disease will be hindered. We all know bugs and weeds won't wait on another additional permit from EPA, and I surely don't think farmers and public officials should have to go through this additional process. Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act--H.R. 872. It passed with overwhelming support. I am very pleased to report it was a bipartisan vote of 292 to 130. Democratic Congressman Collin Peterson, with whom I worked when I was Secretary of Agriculture and whom I have a lot of respect for, said this: It was never the intent of Congress to burden producers with additional permit requirements that would have little to no environmental benefit. I could not agree more with the former chair of the House Agriculture Committee. But he is not alone. Fifty-seven of his Democratic colleagues supported this bipartisan legislation to set the record straight and send a clear message to the EPA. Here in the Senate, I am a cosponsor of a similar bill Senator Roberts introduced this week. I am pleased to stand here today and support his bill. Both of these bills are designed to eliminate this burdensome, costly, redundant permit requirement for pesticide applications. I commend his efforts here. He is trying to do something to solve this problem while protecting farmers and ranchers from additional regulation, but also very mindful of our environment. I urge the majority leader to act quickly on the legislation to address the EPA's redundant and costly double-permitting requirements. We can address this in the Senate. If we don't find a solution, our producers will continue being told how to operate in a very difficult environment. Our producers already deal with the uncertainty of Mother Nature. We should not infuse even more uncertainty into their lives in the form of these regulations that duplicate with no discernible benefit. President Obama recently promised to eliminate programs that duplicate each other. In fact, he issued an Executive order calling for a governmentwide review to identify programs that either duplicated or, as he said at the time, were just plain dumb. I submit to my colleagues that this pesticide double regulation is unnecessary and as dumb as it gets. We should support our farmers and ranchers as they produce safe, affordable food. They are working to protect the land. American agriculture can continue to feed the world, and our farmers will continue to care for the land, unless we set up unnecessary roadblocks. This redundant pesticide permitting requirement is another example of overreach. I hope the Senate will follow the example of the House which voted resoundingly in a very bipartisan way to correct this situation. We cannot afford to delay, with the compliance date right around the corner. It is a deadline we simply cannot ignore. Mr. President, thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHANNS

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

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I wish to start today by thanking the distinguished Senator from Utah for his courtesy. I appreciate it immensely. It has been a bit of a long and tortured process to get here today. I appreciate the opportunity to speak first. All of us work across our States. In communities such as Kearney and Scottsbluff, NE--and I walk those streets often, whether it is in a parade or calling on people--I am struck by the number of small businesses that fill the storefronts. These businesses are the heart and soul of the community. They contribute to the Little League, they give high school students their first jobs, and they ask ``how are the kids doing'' when you stop in to see them. They symbolize what it truly means to be a community. They also symbolize the single most powerful job creating force in our Nation. Sixty-four percent of the new jobs in our Nation are created by small businesses as they expand and grow. So when their livelihood is threatened by an ill-advised policy, we all in the Senate agree that something must be done. Shortly after the health care bill was passed, I, like my colleagues, began hearing from small business owners who were very concerned about a provision that was put into the health care bill on page 737. As the number of concerned job creators continued to mount, I knew, and others in the Senate knew, we had to do something about it. Passing 1099 repeal exemplifies why I came to the Senate--taking an issue that is important to our State and our country and literally building support in this body to do the right thing. I won't deny there have been some frustrations along the way. I certainly didn't expect to have to present the legislation seven times to get to the finish line. But it has been well worth the effort. I could not be more pleased by the bipartisan support that has built this effort. Today presents an opportunity for Members of both parties to unite behind doing the right thing for our job creators. If we pass H.R. 4 and send it on to the President's desk today, it won't be a victory for Republicans or Democrats. I certainly won't report it that way. It is not going to be a victory for a single Senator. It will be a victory for millions of small business owners who have been begging us to do something about this provision for a long time now, and it will be a victory for common sense. That is why today is such an important day in the Senate. In a few short minutes, we will have an opportunity to put to an end the looming 1099 paperwork mandate once and for all. Small businesses in my State and all across the country are depending upon us today to act. One real-life example came from a Nebraska company called Hayneedle. It is an online retailer of home furnishings and other home products. With the new 1099 requirement, Hayneedle estimates that the annual cost of compliance is literally going to exceed $100,000 for them--$100,000. That would go a long way to hiring more people. Adding insult to injury, the 1099 reporting requirement creates a perverse incentive to consolidate suppliers. Fewer suppliers means less 1099 paperwork. This leaves Main Street small suppliers--those businesses I was talking about--out in the cold as big suppliers win more and more business. Dale Black, a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise owner from Grand Island, told me: . . . want to be a good corporate citizen in the communities I have restaurants, but the 1099 forces me not to hire local venders and tradesmen in my community, instead giving work to a single regional contractor. With 40 million businesses, nonprofits, churches, and local governments bracing for the 1099 avalanche of paperwork, every Senator could come to the floor today and tell similar stories. With all these Main Street businesses and their workers hanging in the balance, there is just one clear choice for our businesses: We must advance the House-passed version and, in all due respect to my colleague from New Jersey, reject the Menendez alternative, the Menendez amendment. You see, only the House-passed version will quickly reach the President's desk and provide immediate relief to our job creators. Adding anything on, passing anything else will cause our job creators to wait on the sidelines yet again, because then, of course, we will have different versions--the House version and the Senate version--and I fear we will go off into never-never land. But you see, time has run out on our job creators. When this debate began, the mandate seemed a long way away. It was out there on the horizon. We had a long time to work through these issues. But now 8 months has passed. We voted over and over again, and we never could quite get to the finish line. It is decision time for businesses. They are feeling the pressure to set up the accounting systems they will need to comply with this tangled mess of tax forms that even the IRS doesn't support. This mandate forces many to set aside money for software that could instead be spent on those new workers, and that is why it is so important that the Senate pass the House bill today. Put simply, a vote for the House bill is a vote to actually solve the problem. Again, in all due respect to my colleague from New Jersey, the amendment tells our small businesses that they will have to wait longer. Our path actually gives our job creators some certainty they need to grow their businesses. But the other path, as I said, is a guaranteed sidetrack back into never-never land. While one approach tells small businesses we are with them, the other says we are going to continue to work through this and wrangle back and forth, instead of enacting a bipartisan solution today. The House of Representatives has already led by example. It is important to recognize that. They passed their 1099 repeal on March 3-- more than a month ago--and it got great bipartisan support--314 to 112, and 76 Democrats voted for that repeal. Not only does this legislation pay for the repeal of the 1099 mandate, it actually reduces the deficit by $166 million over the next 10 years. It requires repayment of improper health exchange subsidies--a concept the Senate passed unanimously in December to pay for the doc fix legislation. If we fail to pass the House version today, well, the job creators are being told that they have to divert more of their resources to managing unnecessary paperwork. Let's not vote for another alternative that is going to stall this out again. Let's cast a vote today that sends a clear message. Let's defeat the pending Menendez amendment, and then let's pass the bill so we can get it to the President and get it signed. I am hoping this gets strong bipartisan support. I want to say again that the victory today is not for either party or for a single Senator; it is for the job creators who are depending upon our action today.

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, again with all due respect to my colleague from New Jersey, there have been over 200 business groups that have expressed opposition to the Menendez amendment, and that would include the NFIB, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Franchise Association, and the chamber of commerce. You see, requiring people to pay back what they should not have received in the first place is regarded as good government, not bad policy. That is what should be happening. The second thing I would say about this is that this becomes a roadblock because we end up with a different House bill and a different Senate bill. If this is such a great idea, attach the amendment to some other bill that is coming along, and we can get the study done. So, again, I appreciate the opportunity to work with Senator Menendez, but I do believe very strongly that we need to defeat this amendment.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, it feels a bit like deja vu standing here today discussing the ongoing saga of the 1099 repeal. Two weeks ago, I offered amendment No. 161 to the small business bill. If we read all the press releases and the public statements, it appears that absolutely nobody could possibly oppose repeal of the 1099 requirement in section 9006 of the health care bill. Yet once again the other side is attempting to delay or derail the 1099 repeal by offering a second-degree amendment. I might have been open to a second-degree amendment when we started this process many long months ago. But now we are approaching the 1-year anniversary since we began fighting to repeal this unnecessary mandate. It had no place in the health care bill in the first place. I can't help but question why on Earth we are still swinging and missing at this one. Is it a lack of support in my caucus? The answer to that is no. Support amongst Republicans is absolutely unanimous. Lack of Republican support certainly has not held this up. I ask myself if there is a lack of bipartisan support that is holding up the effort. The answer to that is also no. My colleague, the junior Senator from West Virginia, has cosponsored the last several versions of this repeal legislation in the Senate. Together, Senator Manchin and I have secured dozens of Democrats who strongly support the repeal, and 76 Democrats voted for identical 1099 repeal in the House of Representatives. Bipartisan support is enormously, if not unusually, strong. Might our problem be a lack of support from the White House? The answer to that is also no. The President has publicly called for repeal of this 1099 mandate on several occasions in press conferences. He even referenced it in his State of the Union Address. Is it possible there is still confusion about how our small businesses feel about the mandate? That is not the case. The chorus of job creators opposing this mandate is almost deafening: the chamber of commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, the American Farm Bureau Federation. I could go on and on listing organizations arguing for its repeal. Has it been a controversial pay-for that has slowed down progress? Interestingly enough, an almost identical budgetary offset passed this Chamber unanimously only 4 months ago. Requiring someone to repay what was given to them erroneously is, plain and simple, good government. Even Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius noted that repayment of improper subsidies is ``fair for recipients and all taxpayers.'' So arguments about the pay-for simply are hollow excuses to justify inaction. Our job creators are seeing it for what it really is. It is more nonsense. It astounds me that we can seemingly pass benchmark after benchmark without going over the finish line. How can we make so much important progress only to be stymied again and again by some silent opposition? My friends across the aisle have often complained about the slow pace of the Senate. They have blamed the other side of the aisle for preventing progress. Well, my side of the aisle has been ready for a long time to repeal this job-killing mandate. I want you to know we stand ready to vote. Considering the high unemployment rates plaguing our country, it seems absolutely incomprehensible that we would waste even another day without addressing this mandate in the health care bill. Our job creators have watched dueling amendments and proposals and counterproposals. Well, that has gone on for 1 year. I first circulated a Dear Colleague letter asking for cosponsors of this 1099 repeal in June of last year. When we introduced it in July, with 25 cosponsors, well, small businesses cheered. It gave them hope common sense would prevail in Congress and that partisanship is sometimes set aside to simply do the right thing. But now they see there is yet again a delay tactic in the form of a second-degree amendment to the 1099 repeal. They have been frustrated time and time again--when it failed to advance in September and November and appeared stalled well into the new year. Today, we have a simple choice: We can pass my amendment with strong bipartisan support and demonstrate we have the 60 votes necessary for the House version or we can pass the second-degree amendment and push this repeal off into limbo into Never Never Land yet again. We can actually fix the problem in a bipartisan way or we can continue to kick this can down the road. If we pass the second-degree amendment, quite simply, what we have voted yes to do is delay the repeal of the 1099 amendment and eventually we are going to flirt with disaster on this and it will not get done. We need to focus all our energy on helping our job creators grow and create more jobs, not force them into worrying about hiring more accountants. Pardon my boldness but there is no reason to delay. An identical version of my amendment passed the House with large bipartisan support: 314 to 112. I urge my colleagues, with all I have, to oppose the second-degree amendment my friend from New Jersey is proposing. Let's be clear. This latest distraction from 1099 repeal is just that--it is a distraction. We all know it is not truly about a study to look at health care costs. If we want to do a study, put the amendment on some other piece of legislation. This is about derailing and delaying the 1099 repeal because if the second-degree amendment passes, it says: Instead of sending this to the President to become law, we need to go back to the drawing board. While the proponents of the second-degree amendment will claim it is innocuous, make no mistake, it is designed to obliterate this amendment because of a budgetary offset. Again, I remind us, a similar offset was passed unanimously recently by the Senate. Just like a Politico article from yesterday noted: ``Senate Democrats are working on an amendment that could kill the [Republicans' pay-for in the future].'' If the second degree passes, then we are essentially adding nearly $25 billion to our debt over the next 10 years. While some may preach the virtues of pay-as-you-go rules, when it comes right down to it, they will undermine virtually any fiscally responsible pay-for. So here we are again crossing the same bridge we have crossed so many times before. In fact, the Senate refused this idea when we rejected the Baucus amendment that repealed 1099 but was not paid for. That amendment fell 23 votes short of passage because it fiscally did not make sense. So why are we still here aimlessly walking around in circles when we ought to be marching straight ahead? Why are we proposing to send this bipartisan legislation back to the House? Because that is what will have to happen, when it ought to go directly to the President's desk for signature. Our vote today can send a message that we have all the votes necessary to get this done and get it on the President's desk and everybody can celebrate: our job creators, Democrats, Republicans, Independents. The logic of the second-degree amendment is absolutely baffling. Here we are in the ninth inning and somehow our pay-for has become magically unacceptable, even after a similar pay-for was approved unanimously by the Senate before. Where were all the objections? Where was the demand for further study when we unanimously approved a similar offset for the doc fix legislation? Let me be very clear: A vote in favor of the second degree is a vote against our business and job creators. My amendment has been waiting for a vote for 14 days now, and the repeal has been pending for nearly 1 year. Isn't enough enough? The time for delay and further study must be over. Let's pass my amendment today by an overwhelming vote of the Senate. Let's reject the second degree. Let's get this piece of legislation to the President for his signature and we can all celebrate. Small businesses, our job creators, deserve no less. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHANNS

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

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an industry that has helped shape our country since the days of our Founding Fathers. This industry is part of the very fabric of my home State of Nebraska and of many States. It drives our economy, fosters ingenuity, and preserves the value of a handshake in our society. I am speaking about agriculture, an industry near and dear to this farm boy's heart. What better time to celebrate the remarkable advances in agriculture than National Ag Week. It is not because of my roots on a farm, nor my time as Secretary of Agriculture that I am inspired to speak today. It is because of the remarkable men and women who rise before the sun each morning to feed the world. They provide safe, abundant, and affordable food, fiber, and fuel. They are stewards of our natural resources and drivers of innovation. More than 2 million farmers and ranchers contribute more than $300 billion to the U.S. economy each year. In Nebraska alone, agriculture contributes over $15 billion to the State's economy. Our leading commodities include: cattle, corn, soybeans, hogs, wheat, dairy products, and the list goes on and on. It is estimated that each American farmer feeds more than 144 people, a dramatic increase from just 25 people per farmer in the 1960s. And, as our population and the global population continue to grow, demand for our food, fiber, and fuel products is growing, not just at home but around the globe. In fact, USDA projects that agriculture exports will set a new record, exceeding $135 billion this year. It is estimated that every dollar in agriculture exports generates $1.36 in additional economic activities, including transportation, warehousing, and financing. Nebraska's $4.8 billion in agricultural exports last year generates an additional $6.5 billion in economic activity. Now that is a big deal, particularly during these struggling economic times. However, the demands facing our Nation's farmers and ranchers are daunting. We should ensure the government is not adding unnecessary regulatory and paperwork burdens to their load. Instead, we must empower our Nation's farmers and ranchers to continue to be among the most competitive, productive, and efficient in the world. We should be actively promoting U.S. agriculture by enhancing renewable fuels; ensuring regulations are transparent and science- based; and creating international opportunities through enhanced trade agreements. This last one should be easy, but this administration has made it difficult. Congress has been waiting on the President to submit three free trade agreements, Colombia, Panama, and Korea for more than 2 years now. It is estimated that this cumulative delay has cost almost $2.5 billion in lost agriculture exports per year. And while we have been hobbled on the sidelines, our competitors, including, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and the EU, have been full speed ahead on trade agreements that put U.S. agriculture at a disadvantage. Instead of a maintaining market share and a preference for Nebraska grown wheat, corn, and beef, consumers in Colombia, Panama, and Korea could turn to our competitors. That is because their trade agreements have lowered tariffs while ours collect dust on a White House shelf. And once market share is lost by the United States, it is difficult to regain. I have talked to colleagues on both sides of the aisle who understand this reality. In fact, the chairman of the committee that oversees trade could not have been more clear in recent comments. Senator Max Baucus said: ``The Time Is Here. The Time Is Now. We're Losing Market Share Hand Over Fist.'' I could not agree more. Yet, more than 2 years into their term, the administration still has failed to send us these pending trade agreements for approval. Our Nation's farmers, ranchers and many American workers are asking for them. They know that new orders will be placed and business will flow from the agreements. New jobs will be created. Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to try to create jobs, how about we sign agreements that will do it for us? Approving trade agreements increases spending: zero. Not one penny. Congress simply says, ``aye.'' Perhaps that simply makes too much sense for Washington. The bottom line is that increased trade is one of many opportunities that will help to ensure a bright future for American agriculture. There are many reasons to be optimistic. One need only consider the breathtaking advances in productivity. I have long said that our farmers and ranchers can compete with anyone in the world on a level playing field. It is nothing short of phenomenal that average corn yields are now 160 bushels per each acre of land compared to only 53 bushels just 50 years ago. Frankly, it is difficult to keep pace with the new technologies transforming agriculture. Consider this. Thanks to biotechnology and improved farming practices, last year, American farmers nearly doubled their soybean production from 1980 levels, with just a 10 percent increase in total acres planted. And did you know, some farmers now use satellite and GPS technology to apply water and fertilizer where and when it has the greatest benefit to crops. American agriculture truly is a remarkable success story. It is true that we have big challenges ahead for agriculture. I say bring them on. Our producers have faced down every challenge set before them and I am confident nothing will stand in the way. That is, assuming the Federal Government does not wrap so much redtape around them as to suffocate their ingenuity. There simply is no more resilient bunch than farmers and ranchers. How many Americans would be willing to work hard often 7 days a week, only to leave any profit in the hands of Mother Nature? Only those who recognize that living close to the land comes with its own rewards, and feeding the world is a higher calling. I would suggest that agriculture is the very foundation of our country's rich heritage. Our Founders clearly understood and appreciated the importance of agriculture. George Washington once said he knew of ``no pursuit in which more real and important services can be rendered to any country than by improving its agriculture. . . . '' Thomas Jefferson noted that ``Agriculture . . . is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals and happiness.'' National Ag Week is a good time to reflect on the rich agricultural history of this great Nation. It is a time to celebrate the exciting scientific advances and new opportunities. One thing all my colleagues should be able to agree on: We owe our Nation's farmers and ranchers a sincere thank-you. Every time we go to the grocery store, we are reminded how little of our disposable income we spend in this great Nation because of the good work of our farmers and ranchers. We compare better in our country than just about any country in the world. So we are grateful today for their good work. We say thank you to them for the food, fiber, and fuel that keeps our Nation strong. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I rise today to also speak about the health care bill. The first anniversary of a new law should be a time to celebrate good policy, one would think. The mood surrounding the new health care law is much different. One year later, Americans are demanding as loudly as ever that we repeal it. That is not surprising, considering the almost constant flow of bad news, broken promises, higher costs, and sky- rocketing health insurance premiums. We did not need a year of bad news and broken promises to know this new law was bad policy. It was fraught with problems even before it hit the Senate floor. Many of us pointed out the inevitable problems within this legislation. We warned how this law was predicated on faulty accounting that would exacerbate our current and future fiscal problems. It is simply irresponsible and short-sighted to argue that legislation will reduce the debt when it is filled with budget gimmicks. But that is exactly what Congress did when passing this legislation, and we are paying the price. The administration now admits that the funding elements of this law do not add up. For example, in testimony before the Finance Committee, HHS Secretary Sebelius described the newly created CLASS Act entitlement as ``totally unsustainable.'' Furthermore, in recent congressional testimony, Secretary Sebelius was asked whether the Medicare cuts in the law are used to save Medicare or pay for the health care law. Remarkably, she responded ``both.'' Even a young child knows you can't spend a dollar on a new toy and then spend that exact same dollar to buy an ice cream cone. It is wonderland accounting and even the administration's own Medicare actuary seems to agree. He said the Medicare reductions in the law ``cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions . . . ) and to extend the trust fund.'' Double-counting this money is completely illogical and the American people can see through the smoke-screen long ago. But the fiscal problems with this legislation are not even the half of it. As a former Governor, I shared my concern that putting 16 million people into the broken Medicaid Program is a fatal flaw of this law. Medicaid beneficiaries already have a huge problem finding doctors to treat them. Nationwide, 40 percent of doctors will not see a Medicaid patient. The Medicaid expansion is like giving someone a free bus ticket, and then taking the bus away. But instead of addressing this problem, the law exacerbates the problem by doubling the number of people on the broken system-- Medicaid. If you have an airplane that is already overweight, you wouldn't decide to double the number of passengers to solve the problem, yet that is exactly what the law prescribes. But even if you overlook the access nightmares created by this expansion, our States simply cannot afford it. States are already struggling to pay their bills and now we are heaping more obligations on them. As a former Governor it breaks my heart we are making those problems even greater. That is why cash-strapped States are begging us for relief from the crushing Medicaid mandate headed their way. One didn't have to be a fortune teller to predict the budgetary panic spreading from State capitol to State capitol. And for what benefit? One year later, many of the promises that were used to sell this law have been debunked. For example, remember the President saying ``if you like your plan, you can keep it''? Turns out, that's not exactly true. Again, the administration's own Medicare actuary concluded that the President's promise is ``not true in all cases.'' Turns out truth seems to be more the exception than the rule with this law. One of the administration's own estimates projects as many as 80 percent of small businesses being forced to give up their current coverage within the next 2 years. Remember the President promising that he would not sign into law any legislation that did not bring down the cost curve? In June 2009, President Obama claimed that any health care legislation must control costs. He said, ``If any bill arrives from Congress that is not controlling costs, that's not a bill I can support. It's going to have to control costs.'' One is left to wonder why the President signed this law since his own actuaries estimated it would increase Federal health care spending by $310 million. Earlier this year, the Medicare actuary provided a moment of sad truth. He testified that President Obama's promise that the health care law would lower costs was ``false, more so than true.'' That is so astonishing that I will repeat it again--the administration's own experts said the President's promise was false, more so than true. That is astonishing. Remember how the President promised that the health care law would bring down the cost of insurance premiums? As a presidential candidate, President Obama promised no fewer than 20 times that he would cut premiums by $2,500 for the average family by the end of the first term. Yet the average employee's health insurance premium has risen by nearly $1,100 per family since President Obama took office. A recent New York Times article highlighted this missed opportunity: Groups of 20 or more workers have been experiencing premium increases of around 20 percent, insurance agents say, while smaller groups are seeing increases of 40 percent to 60 percent or more. Finally, the first year of implementing this law provides clear evidence that the administration does not think this health care bill is good for everyone. The administration has now granted over one thousand waivers to certain States, employers, unions, and insurance companies, allowing them to be exempt from several of the law's new mandates. The plans approved for waivers cover nearly 3 million individuals. If the law is so popular and so beneficial, why are we exempting almost 3 million people while the other 300 million have to live with its higher premiums and mandates? This and many other questions have yet to be answered by the administration. However, the President's recent budget request does outline his game plan to advance this flawed policy. The current strategy seems to be spending more taxpayer dollars to continue to try to convince a skeptical public that the health care law is good policy; and if they don't agree, use an enforcement hammer to ensure compliance. Buried within the President's budget is a request for a 315 percent increase for the public affairs office at the Department of Health and Human Services. One of the primary tasks of the Public Affairs Office is to sell the health care reform law to the American people. Furthermore, they also requested a whopping 1,270 new Internal Revenue Service agents to implement the law and to enforce its individual mandate and other related provisions. While Speaker Pelosi may have advocated passing the bill so that we could learn what is in it, many Americans were not so naive. They understand that you can't spend the same dollar twice. They understand that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. They know when someone shows up from the government offering a carrot, there is probably a stick not far behind. Last year, a real opportunity to craft health care policy on a bipartisan basis was squandered. That missed opportunity will continue to haunt us. Unfortunately, I worry that the second year under the oppressive provisions of this law will be no better than the last. It is regrettable that we have reached this point, having known so many of these problems existed before this law passed. But of course we were warned. So, I will use the occasion of the solemn first anniversary to redouble my efforts to right the wrong. We will work to wipe this misguided law from the books to protect the rights of Americans to choose their doctor, select their insurance, and trust in their own good judgment. Many are committed to the cause. I believe it will happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending Johanns- Manchin amendment 161, which I believe would send a positive, strong message to job creators that Congress is listening, that we have heard them. The bill we are debating today to help small businesses utilize Federal funding for research and development is certainly important. But I have to tell my colleagues, I believe what our small businesses are focused on, what they are worried about is the avalanche of new regulations headed their way. They are worried about the mountain of paperwork that is about to overwhelm them due to the 1099 reporting requirements contained in section 9006 of the health care law. Instead of focusing on hiring new workers and growing their businesses, they are meeting with accountants. They are wondering why those in Washington choose to weigh them down further after the last 2 years. So the amendment I offer today seeks to solve that problem by repealing the 1099 reporting mandate that is weighing down upon them. As we all know, I am referring to the tax paperwork nightmare that, as I said, is buried in section 9006 of the health care law. It is straightforward. It says if a business purchases more than $600 of goods or services from another business, then they are required to generate and provide to that business and to the Internal Revenue Service a 1099 form. This new mandate will affect 40 million businesses in this Nation. That is not even mentioning the nonprofits, the churches, our local and State governments that are also impacted. Furthermore, it will stand in the way of job creators by forcing businesses to waste capital and human resources on useless paperwork. Considering the high unemployment rates plaguing many States, it does not make sense that we would keep this job-suppressing paperwork mandate. Yet repealing the nonsensical mandate has been a long and somewhat tortured path. I first circulated a ``Dear Colleague'' letter asking for cosponsors on the 1099 repeal back in June of last year. When we introduced it in July, we had 25 cosponsors, and small business watched us with great anticipation. It gave them hope that common sense was going to prevail in the Senate and that partisanship could be set aside to simply do the right thing. Unfortunately, that hope did evaporate. They have been frustrated, time and time again, when it failed to advance in September and in November and appeared stalled as we came into the new year. But, finally, they saw a ray of hope on March 3 when the House passed 1099 repeal. It was a very large bipartisan effort, 314 to 112. Small businesses cheered last week when Majority Leader Reid endorsed the House-passed version and indicated H.R. 4 would likely be passed and go on directly to the President by the end of the week. Yet, when Thursday rolled around, a vote on 1099 repeal was shelved and replaced with a vote on a judicial nominee. Once again, our job creators were left scratching their heads, disappointed by the continued political gamesmanship on this very important issue. Moving the goalposts yet again, we now hear that some are objecting to the House bill's offset to completely pay for the repeal of the 1099 mandate. This now supposedly controversial provision simply reduces improper overpayments of insurance subsidies. As the Secretary of Health and Human Services said, the repayment of improper subsidies makes it ``fairer for recipients and all taxpayers.'' Yet some have now decided this House offset is somehow a middle-class tax increase. That argument, to me, is stunning. Since when is requiring someone to repay what was given to them erroneously ever regarded as a tax increase? Where I come from that is simply smart government for the taxpayer. Furthermore, I find it a bit too convenient that not one Senator complained about using this very offset to pay for the Medicare doc fix last December. Remember, the Senate passed the doc fix, and they did it unanimously. Only two people opposed it in the House. The President signed it eagerly. Yet, today, some have decided it is somehow a tax increase. It does not pass the smell test. Our small businesses--well, they are not buying it either. They will see it as one more hollow excuse why we cannot provide businesses and their workers relief from the nonsensical paperwork mandate. These job creators have watched dueling amendments and proposals and counterproposals for too long, and they have grown impatient. Our small businesses do deserve better, but, unfortunately, at the moment, we are getting more of the same. More legislative squabbling only delays the certainty that our business community wants us to provide to them. They are looking for us to help them through this paperwork mess. Well, what is happening out there--because this is now starting to stare them in the face--is they are already starting to think about software because they have to track this, and there is a cost to that. They are talking to their accountants, and that costs money. They are diverting very precious capital in anticipation of the new mandate, not to mention the fact that rental property owners are currently subject to the new mandate. Unfortunately, our rental property owners are having to comply with it and track each payment for repairs and for upkeep. We need to give these folks a break so they can focus on growing and creating jobs, not worrying about how to pay for additional accountants. Passing H.R. 4 would show them we are listening to their concerns and we are committed to removing unnecessary barriers to their success. Instead, we are requiring our job creators to wait out on the sidelines while this continues to go on and on and on. They deserve better. So I join our Nation's job creators, once again, asking the Senate to act on this very important issue and repeal the 1099 requirement. Rest assured, they will not go away, and we do not want them to. We want them to do everything they can to create jobs. I will offer this legislation as an amendment to every legislative vehicle moving in the Senate until it becomes law. I am hopeful not many more of these amendments will be needed because there is a simple solution: Repeal it. I believe there is strong bipartisan support for it. We can then send it to the President. He can sign it, as he said he would, and we can celebrate this in a very bipartisan way. A vote on this amendment is significant, not only because it truly is the right thing to do but because it will show that H.R. 4 has more than 60 votes needed to pass the Senate. All we need to do is try on this and get it done. Once again, I point out, this is a bipartisan effort. This is an effort where Republicans and Democrats and Independents can claim victory and say we got this done. It was the right thing to do. It never should have been in the health care bill in the first place. My hope is my colleagues will stick with me. We can get it done. We can get it passed and get it signed by the President. You will hear a cheer all over this country by our job creators when it is finally repealed. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHANNS

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

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the administration's ill-advised cap-and-trade agenda and to support a bipartisan bill that I cosponsored. The Energy Tax Prevention Act would stop EPA from going around Congress and using regulations to implement the administration's failed cap-and-trade agenda. The bill is necessary because the administration is marching ahead with its cap-and-trade agenda even though the American people clearly want to focus on job creation, not policies that destroy jobs. For evidence that the administration is marching ahead, one need only look at the President's budget. It clearly states ``continues to support greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the United States in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.'' Not surprisingly, these reductions are nearly identical to those proposed in the Waxman-Markey House cap-and-trade bill. Americans rejected that legislation because it would have increased taxes on everyone--anyone who turns on a light switch, buys American-made products, fills up their gas tank. The Energy Tax Prevention Act would prevent the administration from using its regulatory powers to circumvent Congress and implement this energy tax that Americans rejected last year. It is about protecting jobs--manufacturing jobs, for example--and it puts Congress back in the driver's seat in charge of energy policy, taking it back from unelected bureaucrats at the too-often overreaching EPA. Above all, this bill rejects the notion that placing additional energy tax burdens on Americans is good policy. As the price of oil climbs and gas prices follow, our bill says: Don't hit Americans with another tax. Make no mistake, cap-and-trade policies would drive up the cost of everything, transportation fuels and electricity leading the way. Nobody disagrees with this understanding. In fact, the central policy mechanism of all of these proposals is making the use and production of fossil fuels more expensive. The Congressional Budget Office has weighed in on this issue, and they put it this way: . . . a cap-and-trade program would thus lead to price increases for energy and energy-intensive goods and services . . . Such price increases would stem from the restriction on emissions . . . Indeed, the price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program. In other words, these efforts are designed to make oil, gas, and coal-fired electricity more expensive, and the same is true for the EPA's regulatory plan. Gas prices will go up, electricity will go up, farm input costs will go up, consumers will pay more, and U.S. manufacturing will get crushed under the heavy hand of the EPA. Meanwhile, our overseas competitors, unfettered by the cap, will gobble up market share and hurt those providing good-paying jobs in this country. Our farmers and ranchers will not be spared either. The cost of running pivot irrigation will go up. Nebraska has thousands of them. Diesel fuel for tractors and combines will go up. The price tag on fertilizer that farmers need to grow crops will skyrocket. Some of my constituents might be saying: I am not a farmer, I am not a manufacturer, so I am not affected. Unfortunately, no American can escape the reach of this ill-advised regulatory effort. Because refineries are first targeted in EPA's regulatory schedule, because electrical plants are first targeted, electric bills and the cost of fuel will go up. If you think gas prices are high now, brace yourself-- more price hikes are coming. And if you think your electric bill at the end of the month is already plenty high, look out for EPA's energy tax. Believe it or not, the Obama administration has made it clear that these higher prices are exactly, precisely what the doctor ordered. During the Presidential campaign, President Obama famously said--he was really up-front: Under my plan, electricity bills would necessarily skyrocket. Citizens probably entered the voting booth with the false hope that we in Congress would never let that happen. Sadly, the Obama administration has made it clear that they intend to work around Congress. Energy Secretary Steven Chu even told the Wall Street Journal in September of 2008: Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe. That is not my vision for America. And with gasoline over $7 per gallon in places such as Germany and France, I doubt many Americans share that vision. Yet this administration has chosen to use the EPA to make gasoline expensive through its ill-advised energy tax plan. The EPA is literally targeting our fuel refineries when gas prices are headed to $4 per gallon and oil is over $100 a barrel. It doesn't make sense. But just when we thought we saw a ray of hope, when the President said he wanted to slow down the regulatory freight train bearing down on the Nation's job creators, well, something happened. He said he wanted to reduce the regulatory burdens on small businesses. He even went so far as to put out an Executive order in January, and he instructed the agencies to review ``rules that have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business, burdens that have stifled innovation and have a chilling effect on growth and jobs.'' Well, unfortunately, the EPA apparently believes their greenhouse gas regulations are more important than job creation. The headline from the Hill newspaper says it all: ``EPA Confident Obama Reg Policy Won't Affect New Climate Rules.'' So the EPA, all powerful, quickly dismissed the Executive order saying: ``EPA is confident that our recent and upcoming steps to address GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act comfortably pass muster under the sensible standards the President laid out.'' In other words, the EPA believes, and continues to think, their regulatory cap-and-trade plan is not an unreasonable burden on consumers, small business, and job creators. One would have to suspend all rational thought to reach that conclusion. It is unbelievable. Here is the kicker: These EPA regulations will have no discernible impact on global temperatures. Put simply, the EPA's agenda is all about more pain and no gain because the rules and regulations in the United States don't control places such as China, India, and Brazil, obviously. You see, global warming is called global warming for a reason. Yet it is our farmers, our ranchers, and our small businesses that will be saddled with the job-killing costs. American job creators will have one arm tied behind their back trying to compete. Even EPA Administrator Jackson admitted the House cap-and-trade bill would have negligible impact on global temperatures. This is all unbelievably bad for America. It is no wonder the Senate roundly repudiated the idea last year. Yet the EPA charges forward. We must restore some measure of common sense. This bill is the right step, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a few minutes about our current fiscal situation. Over the next few weeks, we are undoubtedly going to have a very robust debate on our country's future and the tremendous issues we face. We are going to have a debate about the need for fiscal responsibility. One thing all of my colleagues should be able to agree on is that our current level of spending and borrowing and debt is just simply not sustainable. When you are bringing in $2.2 trillion but you are spending $3.8 trillion annually, something is seriously wrong. Adding $1.65 trillion to the national debt each and every year is not the answer. We simply cannot afford to continue in this direction. For too long, the answer of Washington was: We will be all things to all people--promising everything with really no plan to pay for it. The result now is that we face a financial crisis unlike anything our Nation has ever seen. While Americans are making very tough, painful decisions in their daily lives, their government still refuses to make the same difficult choices. I come from a State where its citizens really do believe that less government is better government. But even if my colleagues disagree that less government is better, we would be hard-pressed to find anyone who can argue with the numbers. Numbers do not lie, and they cannot be spun. Let's take a look at the numbers, grim by any economist's viewpoint. We are currently borrowing 42 cents on every dollar. For every dollar spent today, every dollar spent this year by the Federal Government, 42 cents is borrowed. Can you imagine an average family charging nearly half of all of their spending to a credit card? It would not take long for that family to face bankruptcy. What is happening with our Nation is we are absolutely losing control of our destiny. I heard the Senator from Wyoming talk about the oil issues and the fact that we are shipping our resources out of this Nation. That is absolutely true. But what is also happening is that for every dollar borrowed, we have to find a banker. Looking at this chart, who are our bankers out there? China, Japan, other foreign holders, oil exporters, the UK. And we begin to understand the point. Billions of dollars annually are being borrowed from foreigners who have really no home interest in our Nation. The interest payments on our debt will increase to almost $1 trillion by 2020--an increase of 370 percent since 2009. Again, just look at the chart. The numbers do not lie--a nearly 380 percent increase by 2020. The American people are absolutely appalled at trillion-dollar annual deficits. Just imagine, therefore, trillion-dollar annual interest payments. And what if current interest rates go up, which many project they will? Each 1 percent increase in interest rates equals--get this-- $140 billion in additional debt. Our interest payments alone will eventually bankrupt our country before we even begin to think about providing services to our citizens, and everything will suffer. If you like education, guess what. It will suffer. If you want to build more roads and bridges, guess what. It will suffer. Our society will suffer. Probably most important, for those of us in the Senate, the legacy we leave behind for our children and grandchildren of a diminished standard of living because we could not get our spending under control is absolutely a horrific legacy. Our country's national debt totals nearly 70 percent of our entire gross domestic product. Looking down the road, within 10 years our publicly held debt will be at the 90- percent threshold. While the American public looks on at this Enron accounting with utter amazement, they can't imagine 90 percent of their paychecks going to pay off debt. Yet their government continues to recklessly add to the debt year after year after year, trillion-dollar deficits, trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Well, this is just enormous. It is a record-setting annual deficit. The alarm bells are sounding, the red lights are flashing, and the flags are waving. We have to stop it. While this discussion would not likely even acknowledge the entitlement iceberg headed our way, we have to come to grips with the reality that we can't finance what we have promised. Yet some object to $61 billion in spending reductions. In the grand scheme of what we are dealing with, that is hard to imagine. How can we possibly attack a massive debt if we can't even come to agreement on $61 billion out of a $3.5 trillion annual budget? Now, I acknowledge $61 billion is significant. I acknowledge many of these programs are programs I like. But if we don't come to grips with this, those programs will not exist. Yet many are saying: Well, let's do a little nip and a tuck. Let's maybe get $4 billion out of this. That is only fourteen onehundredths of 1 percent in reductions. Does anyone really think that is a serious effort? Nobody is buying that. The media is not buying it, and the American people aren't buying it. I just did nine townhall meetings all across my State, and they are not buying it back home. It is time to roll up our sleeves. It is time to say: Look, we can't go on doing this. It is my intention to be on the floor of the Senate on these issues a lot in the weeks and months ahead. I believe we are at a tipping point. If we don't turn this around, we may lose the ability to control our own destiny. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I withdraw my request.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I compliment the minority leader on his comments on trade. I wish to speak in morning business on the same topic. I will not have to speak long because I have talked about this many times since I joined the Senate over 2 years ago. Today I will focus on the U.S.-Colombia trade agreement. This agreement was signed by both the United States and Colombia on November 22, 2006. It has been around many years. It is expected to create several thousand jobs. Yet for 5 years, to the detriment of U.S. exporters and job seekers, policymakers have punted on this important trade agreement. The Obama administration has been sitting on the sidelines watching other countries slowly chip away at U.S. competitiveness in the Colombian marketplace. Our friends to the north in Canada and to the south in Mexico wisely negotiated new agreements with Colombia. They saw the void U.S. companies and workers should have been filling and acted to fill that void themselves. I believe it is time we stop watching other countries make the moves that have been teed up for this country for about 5 years. Implementing the agreement would increase U.S. exports by more than $\1/2\ billion annually and create almost 4,000 much needed jobs in the United States. Simply stated, passing this agreement would help to improve our economy. In last year's State of the Union Address, we heard our President say: If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. I applauded his comments. I applauded his desire to increase exports. But, unfortunately, no action was taken on the President's words. During this last year's State of the Union Address, the President again acknowledged the need for the Colombia trade agreement by saying: We will strengthen our trade relations with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia. Once again, these words will ring hollow with no action. Yet again today, in a much touted speech to the Chamber of Commerce, the President talked about pursuing the Colombia trade agreement. I must admit, I asked the question: What on Earth is left to pursue? The agreement was signed nearly 5 years ago. It is ready for approval. All the President needs to do is submit it for our action. If the President thinks there was more pursuing to do, what have we been waiting for the past couple of years? Why has not the administration pursued whatever it is they think needs pursuing for now over 2 years? Americans who are out of work know this administration is missing an opportunity to say to thousands of Americans: You have a job. Our job creators are waiting. My hope is the President stands behind his remarks today. This is a golden opportunity for the President to send a signal that his words do have meaning and to show that we can, in fact, work together in a bipartisan way. He could submit the Colombia trade agreement to Congress for approval today and send an enormously powerful message that when he says ``pursue,'' he means action, not stall. Folks from my State are anxiously awaiting approval of this agreement as are folks from around the country. We should all be reminded that workers and businesses in our home States will benefit from the Colombia trade agreement. Our farmers and ranchers would benefit from the elimination of tariffs on more than 77 percent of agricultural goods. American workers will see more of their products sold as 76 percent of Colombian tariffs on our industrial goods are eliminated immediately. No doubt about it, this agreement will have a real impact on Nebraskans and other Americans who work hard every day to make a better life for their families. Let me share a couple of examples of Nebraskans who want to see the U.S.-Colombia trade agreement ratified. Take Nebraska-based manufacturer Valmont Industries, for example. Valmont has loyal customers in Colombia who buy its irrigation pivots. Currently, Colombia imposes a 15-percent duty or tax on those pivot systems. This would be eliminated by the Colombia trade agreement. If the 15-percent duty is, in fact, eliminated, Valmont estimates they would gain market share against European competitors and add 10 to 15 new jobs in Nebraska alone. Take Rick Larson of Potter, NE. He grows wheat and corn. He has a small livestock operation. Unfortunately, the market share of American farmers is declining rapidly in Colombia. When we signed the agreement, American farmers such as Rick Larson in Potter supplied 76 percent of the wheat to Colombia. Today they sell 22 percent. For Rick that means he has lost 15 cents per bushel of wheat. That impacts a real family. It is a similar story with corn. He has lost 4 cents per bushel. In a place where we throw around the idea of trillions, that may not sound like much, but it means Rick's wheat and corn revenues were down $7,600 last year just because the administration had not submitted those trade agreements for our approval. Farmers such as Rick cannot believe we are sitting on our hands while our market share is evaporating right before our eyes. He shudders to think what will happen to his sales prices once Canada beats us to a free-trade agreement, even though it was signed 2 years after ours. It is not easy to regain lost market share once it is gone. It worries exporters when they see their government standing between them and a promising marketplace. Nebraska farmers and ranchers and those across the country can compete with anyone. All they are asking for is a level playing field and a fair shot. We have been giving exporters from Colombia more than a fair shot through the Andean Trade Preferences Act, which is set to expire on February 12. Under the agreement, a whopping 90 percent of goods and services coming into our country to compete with our citizens enters absolutely duty free. I think we should extend the Andean Trade Preferences, but we should also knock down the barriers for our own exporters and level the playing field. We must give our workers that level playing field by approving the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. American exporters have waited too long to realize the benefits of this trade agreement. Isn't it time to get serious about beating our global competitors in the Colombian market? Don't we all realize U.S. jobs depend upon this? You see, we all represent people such as Valmont and farmers such as Rick. Let's pay tribute to their entrepreneurial spirit by tearing down Colombian trade barriers that inhibit economic growth in this great Nation. I urge the President to transmit the signed U.S.-Colombia trade agreement to Congress immediately. This is one Senator who is going to stand behind the President and do everything I can to try to get that agreement ratified in the Senate. It is time for Speaker Boehner and Leader Reid to call it up for consideration as soon as it reaches their desks. But, most important, it is time for the President to lay it on their desks. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I had an opportunity during the comments of my colleague Senator DeMint to sit here and listen to those. I wish to start my comments today by complimenting Senator DeMint. Those were very thoughtful comments. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle are now acknowledging the problems with the health care law. It was a fascinating process, last September and October as we were leading up to the November elections, to see Members running to be on the other side of the aisle and saying, well, I would have done this differently, and if I get there, I will do that differently. One such provision designated for repair is my legislation to repeal the 1099 reporting mandate that is in the legislation. To be clear, I have never argued that that was the start of the unraveling of the health care bill. I do not believe that for a moment. What I would say is this: That provision should have never been in the health care law. I am very pleased to report today that that legislation, after two attempts to try to get it repealed, now has the support, bipartisan support, of 61 Senators. The President mentioned repealing this provision in the State of the Union Address. While there is bipartisan agreement on this provision that it needs to be taken out and repealed, the rest of the 2,700-page bill is still bursting at the seams with flawed provision after flawed provision. Months and months ago, as this bill was making its way forward, each one of us individual Senators had an opportunity to decide: Can this bill be changed enough to be saved? The conclusion I reached is there were no amendments that could change this bill enough that I could ever support it. It is fatally flawed and you cannot repair the problems. The catch phrase these days--the catchy slogan--is that we will repair this bill. Well, this bill is beyond repair. We cannot tinker around the edges. We cannot just kick the tires and put some air in them. A good detailing job on this bill will not save it. Even a major overhaul cannot get this bill back on the road. It needs to go back to the factory. This bill is a lemon. It is simply beyond repair. That is why it is important for all of us to support Senator McConnell's amendment to repeal the health care bill in its entirety. Let me start out and say what courts are now acknowledging: This is an unconstitutional piece of legislation. The underlying foundation of the health care law is predicated on a false premise: that the Constitution somehow allows us--us, here in Congress--to demand of every private citizen that they buy a government-approved product or face a penalty. Let me repeat that. The premise of this legislation--the false premise, the unconstitutional premise--is that somehow we, as elected representatives, possess the constitutional power to force every individual in America to buy a government-mandated and approved product or face a fine. That is an unconstitutional premise. Recently, this fundamental flaw was exposed by court rulings in Virginia and Florida. As a lawyer, I have read both of them, first word to last word. I just finished reading the Florida decision yesterday. These courts, in thoughtful opinions, found that this so-called individual mandate was simply unconstitutional. Judge Vinson, in his Florida ruling, said: If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be ``difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power'' and we would have a Constitution in name only. You see, according to Judge Vinson's ruling, the entire health care law is unconstitutional because it is predicated upon the individual mandate. President Obama has argued that. Members have argued that on the floor. Now there is this attempt to extricate from that argument, and it will not work. The law will continue to be debated in other courtrooms, but I believe we are looking forward to a day when the Supreme Court of the United States says to Congress: You went too far. You went beyond the Constitution of this great Nation. However, the health care law is flawed, even beyond this congressional overreach, this unprecedented congressional overreach. The health care law double counts dollars, threatens the health care infrastructure of this great Nation, and adds more individuals to a system I am very familiar with as a former Governor: the broken Medicaid system. There is not a Governor in America who would come before any hearing of Congress and argue that the Medicaid system is anything but broken. This bill is also paid for by over $500 billion in tax increases and over $500 billion in real cuts to Medicare. Regardless of the claims to the contrary, Medicare cuts simply cannot be counted twice. They cannot simultaneously reduce the deficit, extend the solvency of Medicare, and then pay for this open-ended entitlement. Well, I am sure any American out there would see the fallacy of trying to say to them: Well, you can spend the same dollar twice. You can, on one hand, pay for your mortgage and, on the other hand, use the same dollar to make the car payment. No American would believe that. You see, only in Washington could you get away with such Enron-type accounting. It is simply budget hocus-pocus. Even the administration's own CMS concludes that the law's Medicare cuts ``cannot be simultaneously used to finance other federal outlays . . . and to extend the trust fund.'' I have long made the assertion that if Congress makes reductions in the Medicare Program, then those dollars need to stay in the Medicare Program, to shore up a program that is running out of money, not to pay for a new health care entitlement. Instead, here is what we end up with. These cuts to Medicare are going to have long-term consequences to seniors' access to physician and health care services. Let me focus on my own State for a moment. Nebraska home health agencies. Under this bill, in just 5 short years, two-thirds of our home health agencies will be operating in the red. Nebraska nursing facilities, already stretched to the limit, will have to endure $93 million in cuts. Does anyone want to argue that is not going to force the closing of nursing homes in Nebraska? Of course it will. Hospitals and hospice--major reductions in funding. Mr. President, 35,000 Nebraskans who like and receive the advantages of Medicare Advantage are going to see reductions in their benefits. If Nebraskans are going to endure these cuts, and others across the country do the same, they should at least have the security of knowing that the sacrifice they are being asked to endure is going to improve the Medicare Program. If all the tax increases and all the Medicare cuts were not enough, the law's projected cost completely ignores the $115 billion it will cost to implement the legislation. Around here, billions of dollars are thrown around. We, all of a sudden in the last 2 years, added new words to our vocabulary, ``trillions.'' A program is not big enough unless it has a trillion- dollar pricetag anymore. Well, let us remind ourselves that those are hard-earned dollars to somebody out there trying to make a living. This is not about funding trillion-dollar programs. This is about poor individuals in this Nation who are struggling to get by, nearly 20 percent of whom are underemployed or completely unemployed. All these hidden costs will drive up the pricetag even more for this ill-advised statute. However, one of the most troubling aspects of this so-called reform is its massive expansion of Medicaid. It simply heaps more unfunded mandates onto State budgets. As a former Governor, I do not know how Governors are doing it these days. They are in a financial meltdown, with few exceptions, and here we are simply heaping more unfunded mandates onto State budgets that are already crumbling. It puts--get this--16 million more people into the most broken part of the health care system: Medicaid. I can attest to the challenge of trying to provide quality health services for those on Medicaid today, not even addressing the millions to be added. Even now, our offices are flooded with frustrated individuals completely unable to find someone to provide health care services to them due to the lack of participation in the Medicaid Program. You see, the story is this: 40 percent of doctors do not take Medicaid patients. Why? They cannot afford to. Ask any doctor, any hospital administrator in America: Could you keep your office or your hospital open on Medicaid reimbursement, and they would laugh at you. They would say: Absolutely not. We would go broke. So what is the government's solution to that problem? Put 16 million more people into a broken system. It is not because they do not want to treat these patients, you see. They do. But the Medicaid reimbursement rates would drive them into bankruptcy. So instead of dealing with that problem--a very serious problem in terms of access for poor people--what do we do? We burden our States with additional costs with this legislation. We saddle them with little flexibility through maintenance of effort mandates and totally disregard the big question of how all these new eligible individuals ever have a chance of finding care. According to a recent study, the Medicaid expansion is going to cost Nebraska between $458 million and $691 million over 10 years, depending upon participation rates. More shocking is that almost one in five Nebraskans will now be forced on Medicaid--a system where we cannot find them care. We are not unique. This is the true story in every State in the United States. The impact on this Medicaid expansion could be profound to many hospitals because Medicaid-eligible individuals who are unable to find primary care--and there will be millions of them--will turn to the emergency ward for their care. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control reported detailed statistics on nationwide emergency room usage. While only 14.1 percent of all households in the United States had Medicaid coverage, Medicaid patients comprised more than one-quarter--25.2 percent--of all ER visits nationwide. This preliminary May CDC report confirmed that the uninsured do not visit the ER the most often, which is contrary to the arguments made on the very floor I am standing. This preliminary May CDC report confirmed that the uninsured do not visit the ER the most often; patients with Medicaid do. Specifically, more than 30 percent of Medicaid patients under 65 visited the ER at least once, compared to fewer than 20 percent of uninsured patients and those with private insurance. An ER physician put it best: High utilization (of the ER) is no surprise; many patients have difficulty finding primary care providers who take Medicaid, so the ER is the only alternative. So what does this new law do to solve this problem? Nothing. It exacerbates and exaggerates and compounds the problem. I could go on and on because the flaws in the law are so abundant and so severe that it cannot operate. Let me wrap up with this thought: The people of America deserve better than this effort. The people of America deserve something better than an unconstitutional attempt to say the Federal Government knows better than you. No mechanic could get this jalopy running again. They would just scratch their head and say: Haul it to the junkyard. This health care bill is so fatally flawed, it cannot be fixed. The only option, contrary to what happened 1 year ago, is to go back and, in a bipartisan way, work to build solutions to the health care challenges, a step at a time, for once and for all; instead of compounding problems, solve them. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to congratulate 17- year-old Teresa Scanlan of Gering, NE, on being crowned as Miss America 2011. Teresa represented our great state as Miss Nebraska 2010 at the Miss America Pageant held earlier this year in Las Vegas, NV. She is the first Miss Nebraska to win the pageant, and I know our State is very proud of Teresa. Teresa, the daughter of Jamie and Mark Scanlan, graduated from Scottsbluff High School and plans to attend college at Patrick Henry College in Virginia after her year as Miss America. In the future, she would like to get involved with politics and attend law school. As Miss America, Teresa will travel throughout the United States. She will raise awareness of the dangers of eating disorders and will also serve as the National Goodwill Ambassador for Children's Miracle Network Hospitals. I thank Teresa for her efforts to make a real difference in the lives of others and to set a positive example for other young people to follow. Congratulations, again, to Miss America 2011, Nebraska's very own Teresa Scanlan.

Mr. JOHANNS

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

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, as we look forward to tonight's State of the Union Address, we are hearing a lot of talk about jobs and the United States being more competitive. Unfortunately, the American people have heard the talk, they have heard the rhetoric, but they do not see the concrete action that is going to make a difference. The time for talk really is over. Today, I am introducing three concrete measures to unleash American competitiveness and lift barriers to American job creation. First, we must unbridle our job creators from the onerous 1099 tax paperwork mandate that is buried in section 9006 of the health care bill. Behind the scenes, for the past few weeks there has been growing bipartisan support for this important piece of legislation. In fact, now I can report that 50 Senators have signed on as cosponsors, including, I believe, 10 or 11 of my colleagues from across the aisle. Successful passage of this repeal would send an enormously powerful message. It would declare that the 112th Congress will come together to remove barriers to job creation. Left unabated, though, this avalanche of paperwork will simply bury businesses. If a business purchases more than $600 of goods or services from another business, it will be required to provide the business and the IRS with a 1099 tax form. This new mandate will affect all kinds of businesses in the country. It also will include nonprofits, churches, local governments. This small section of this 2000-plus page bill is causing massive confusion and, I might add, outrage across the country. Although this mandate was included in the health care law, it has absolutely nothing to do with improving health. Rather, section 9006 was included because it would supposedly generate money to help pay for the bill. But the National Taxpayer Advocate, a division of the IRS, does not buy it. Their analysis took all the air out of the argument by concluding that the IRS would ``face challenges making productive use of this new volume of information.'' The analysis adds that the IRS likely would ``improperly assess penalties that it must abate later, after great expenditure of taxpayer and IRS time and effort.'' This mandate was ill-advised, and it is not responsible policy. We can do better, and the time is now. The President himself is talking about ridding the books of outdated regulations. We should not overlook this new regulation that will smack businesses if we fail to repeal it. It will inflict a mountain of paperwork on an estimated 40 million business owners across this Nation, and it stands in the way of job creation. It is going to have an impact in Nebraska, there is no doubt about that. In fact, as I have traveled back home, I have been inundated with stories about business owners who are bracing for the impact. Jeff Scherer of Smeal Manufacturing Company in Snyder, NB, says the bill will lead to an additional $23,000 in accounting costs. Being able to invest that $23,000 into a company will go a long way toward helping justify business expansion. Another real-life example from Nebraska is a company called Hayneedle. Hayneedle is an online retailer of home furnishings and other home products located in Omaha, NB. Hayneedle employs 400 people. Prior to the 1099 tax reporting mandate, Hayneedle issued approximately 150 1099 forms annually. Now this great company will be required to issue thousands more tax forms every year. They will be required to track payments for everything from a computer to rent to office supplies. Simple expenses such as food purchases for employees would have to be counted and traced. The company estimates that the annual cost of compliance will exceed $100,000--useless paperwork. That $100,000 would go a long way toward hiring more workers. In addition, the thousands of Hayneedle's vendors will be required to complete and return to Hayneedle a form W-9. This means Hayneedle will be required to review and process and oftentimes correct those forms and then issue a 1099 to the vendors. It is a mad circle for no good even. If the 1099 law is not repealed, it will waste vast quantities of capital and human resources. Squandering these resources will stunt their ability to grow their businesses. Our Nation needs more employers like Hayneedle and Smeal Manufacturing to continue growing and putting people to work. Considering the high unemployment rate plaguing every State in the country, it is incomprehensible that we keep this in place. This new 1099 reporting requirement will have an especially detrimental effect on small businesses in our local communities. For example, the new 1099 reporting requirements create a perverse incentive to consolidate suppliers, which leaves Main Street businesses out in the cold. You see, businesses will likely reduce the number of vendors they work with to reduce the paper transactions to avoid the $600 limit and avoid the paperwork. When suppliers are consolidated, you can bet that suppliers will lose out. Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant owner Dale Black of Grand Island says it best. He says this: He ``wants to be a good corporate citizen in the communities I have restaurants, but the 1099 forces me not to hire local vendors and tradesmen in my community; instead giving work to a single regional contractor.'' The IRS's own Taxpayer Advocate appears to agree, saying: Small businesses may lose customers, leave the economy with more large national vendors and less local competition. Now, I am certain the goal was not to strangle small-town economies, but it is the unintended consequence and reality of this new mandate. We need to look for ways to help small businesses, not hamper them. But there is no way to talk around this provision, to spin it. It is simply brutal for the American business community. Businesses cannot afford the new burden. They are imploring us to help them. That is why the Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act, introduced today with that many cosponsors, simply needs to become the law. Repealing this mandate is going to be a joint effort of all of us in the Senate, and my hope is it will be done. In fact, there is something else we can support to create an estimated 27,000 new jobs, and it does not cost taxpayers anything. I am referring to the second piece of my American competitiveness and jobs package, our three pending trade agreements. Unfortunately, with our economy struggling, this issue has been given lip service for the past couple of years. Although our President mentioned this topic almost 1 year ago, we have seen virtually no action. During last year's State of the Union Address, the President boldly stated: We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. I could not agree more with his statement. The next day I offered a letter to the President with 17 Senators offering our help and our support. But, unfortunately, a year later, there has been little action. The White House has not sent to us the three trade agreements that are sitting on the shelf collecting dust. It is an unfortunate squandering of a sorely needed opportunity. So with 14 million Americans still unemployed, our country will tune in to the State of the Union tonight with keen ears for ideas that create jobs, that boost the economy. But our three negotiated trade deals continue to sit there. It is unacceptable, and it needs to change. By this July, the European Union and South Korea will have implemented their own free-trade agreement, putting U.S. business at a competitive disadvantage. The Korea-U.S. Free trade Agreement fixes that. Our friends to the north in Canada and south in Mexico have trade deals in place with Colombia. While our agreement languishes, their exports are winning the marketplace. Imagine how our exporters feel watching their competition move to the front of the line, knowing that the agreements put them ahead. If we fail to act on the agreement, it is clear that our U.S. producers will fall behind. It is happening. Thus, today, some of my colleagues and I introduced a resolution pushing for the approval of the Korea, Colombia, and Panama trade agreements. Our President and this Congress hold the keys to unlocking the benefits. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, these agreements would increase new U.S. exports between $10 and $12 billion, reducing the U.S. trade deficit and boosting the economy. In addition, these new U.S. goods exported to South Korea, to Colombia, to Panama would yield 27,000 new jobs. Overall this means an estimated gain in GDP of over $12 billion from net exports annually. This would be music to the ears of our exporters and those looking for work. Their government should similarly be chomping at the bit to get this done. It is within our grasp. American workers and businesses are essentially pleading for us to move forward. The folks on the production line, in our fields, those seeking employment, are the ones with true skin in the game. We need to unleash their potential by unleashing the pending agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. These agreements will level the playing field and eliminate barriers for U.S. goods. Our workers are always ready to roll up their sleeves and do what they can to start producing. Recently our Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, said: Our current pace of hiring will require 4 to 5 years to reach normal unemployment levels. Now, 4 to 5 years is too long to wait. We need to do everything we can to change that picture. So imagine the impact of immediately eliminating tariffs on 80 percent of U.S. exports to South Korea. Remember, only 13 percent of our goods and services are currently exported tariff free. How about immediately eliminating tariffs on U.S. exports to Colombia for more than 77 percent of agricultural goods and 76 percent of industrial goods. Consider a whopping 90 percent of Colombian imports already enter our country duty free under the Andean Trade Preference Act. This leveling of the playing field is sorely needed. To be clear, I do not oppose helping our neighbors, and the Andean agreement was designed to do that. But should we not at least seek the same treatment for our businesses and our workers? Almost 1 year ago today we heard the President speak about aggressively expanding the marketplace in the international market. These agreements would do that. I hope tonight he reaffirms his commitment. Finally, the third pillar of the competitive package that I introduced today will lower our corporate tax rates 20 percent. For many years, the United States has had the second highest corporate tax rate in the world--second highest corporate tax rate in the world-- second only to Japan. Japan has now announced that they will reduce their corporate rate for 2011. With this reduction, the United States will have the highest corporate tax rate of anyone in the entire world. That means the U.S. tax environment for our job creators will be the least attractive in the entire world. Here is the math: When you take into account a Federal corporate tax rate of 35 percent and the average State corporate tax rate, the combined U.S. corporate tax rate totals more than 39 percent, nearly 40. This combined rate soars above those of other countries with which American businesses compete. That makes absolutely no sense. Is it any wonder that jobs are leaving this country to go to other competitive countries? Our Nation should be encouraging business creation and growth, not putting our job creators at a disadvantage with this extraordinary, No. 1-in-the-world tax rate. At least 27 of 34 nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have cut their general corporate income tax rates since 2000. These countries have benefitted from increased capital investment, and--get this--they have seen their corporate tax revenues, as a share of GDP, actually increase even with the lower rate because they are expanding the base. According to a July 2010 analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the U.S. would have to reduce its Federal rate to 20.3 percent to match the average corporate rate of other OECD countries. Thankfully, many recognize the need to bring our corporate tax rate in line with those of other industrialized nations. In fact, in December, the President's Export Council recommended the corporate tax rate be reduced to 20 percent. This will stimulate job creation across the country, all sectors of the job market. Washington cannot continue to say one thing and do another. That is why today I am introducing the Restoring America's Competitiveness in Enterprise Act of 2011. This legislative package, the 1099 repeal, the resolution supporting the trade agreements, the bill to reduce the highest--soon to be the highest--corporate tax rate in the world will provide a solid foundation for our country to move forward. It will send a powerful message that this 112th Senate supports job creation and is committed to unleashing America's competitiveness. I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important package. We are off to a good start, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have joined me in this effort. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I rise today to briefly discuss the so- called omnibus spending package that is apparently headed this way. This budget-busting, trillion-dollar spending behemoth is nearly 2,000 pages in length, and it is laden with over 6,000 earmarks for various special interests. This is a debacle that could have been avoided. Today is the 349th day of this year. There are only 16 days until the end of the year. There are only 10 days until one of the most sacred Christian holidays--Christmas. Yet the majority waited until just now to unveil our first real appropriations bill that will be considered on the Senate floor in the entire year. The fiscal year began on October 1 of this year. Yet we have waited over 2 months to even consider a fiscal year 2011 spending bill. How could anybody claim this is responsible management of our citizens' tax dollars? There is no way to sugarcoat it. Congress has been derelict in its duty to produce any of the 12 annual appropriations bills for the fiscal year. We did not even bother to debate or pass a budget resolution this year to at least create the notion that Congress wanted to constrain spending. While Americans across this country are taking a hard look at their finances, prioritizing their spending, their government continues to max the taxpayer credit card. This one is a doozy: 1,924 pages, $1.27 trillion in spending, $9 billion more than even last year's unacceptable spending levels, over 6,000--let me repeat that--over 6,000 earmarks that were funded more on geography and political influence than on anything to do with merit. That is $8 billion worth of earmarks when the American people are crying out for transparency and thought they had sent a strong message in November. While we should have been considering how to constrain spending, the authors of this legislation were busy behind closed doors seeing how much pork they could return to their States. This ``you get yours and I will get mine'' mentality is one of the reasons we have the budgetary hole we have dug. Yet we see 6,000 earmarks tucked away in this legislation. Let me just give three of the priorities, according to these earmarks: $200,000 of somebody's hard-earned tax dollars for beaver management; $1.5 million of somebody's hard-earned tax dollars for mosquito trapping; $300,000 of somebody's hard-earned tax dollars for the Polynesian Voyaging Society. The list goes on and on. I could be here for the next 24 hours going through the list. When I was Secretary of Agriculture, we proposed a budget, and we would not have a single earmark in it. But after the logrolling occurred on Capitol Hill, we would get our funding back, and it would be absolutely stuffed with earmarks, spending somebody's hard-earned tax dollars. It is a sad commentary that a few million dollars in home State pork can often convince someone to swallow $1 trillion of government spending. Yet that is where we end up too often. It looks to me like this is greased, and it is going to happen again. The authors of this legislation simply missed the message of November 2. We should be passing appropriations bills that actually rein in spending instead of doubling down, spending more, and adding to the era of big government. Yet this massive bill is laden with end-of-the-year gifts. One supporter of the spending bill actually admitted it was the Christmas tree of all time, adorned by spending somebody else's hard- earned tax dollars. This spending juggernaut is simply not what Americans want or deserve. While we are faced with numerous challenges, none is greater than tackling this growing spending in our national debt. In fact, a bipartisan group of almost 20 Senators came to the floor yesterday--and I was part of that group--to pledge our commitment to address the national debt. How ironic that this massive spending bill is being discussed the very next day. Maybe actions speak louder than words. It is time for us to actually back up the rhetoric on controlling spending. A look at the last appropriations bills just since I arrived a couple of years ago shows spending is growing by 17 percent. The sad truth of that number is there is no economy--no economy--that can grow the revenues fast enough to keep up with the spending appetite of Washington, DC. In fact, in a few years we will be spending more on finance charges than the entire defense budget. It is like a family running up the credit card and then looking for more credit cards. But, unfortunately, it is now commonplace to pass bills that spend $1 trillion when our citizens are saying: Please stop. Unfortunately, the spending has not stopped. I will oppose this bill, and I will do all I can to advocate that my colleagues do the same. Government spends too much. We need to keep more at home with the people. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, this is a rather remarkable moment. On each side, Republicans and Democrats are standing to describe a problem that literally jeopardizes not just the future of our children and our grandchildren, but it jeopardizes our security; that is, our runaway spending and our deficit. If I might, let me put this in perspective. As a former Governor of Nebraska, I used to tell my cabinet, when we were struggling through budget issues, that this is not magic, it is math. That is the reality of what we are dealing with here. We simply have a problem that is so gigantic, it can only be solved in a bipartisan way. Let me offer a couple of statistics to back up that statement. If you look at the entire Federal budget, this is what you see. If you add Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and the interest we pay on our debt, that is 64 cents of every dollar we spend annually. Let me repeat those programs: Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and the interest we pay on our debt. Everybody will acknowledge the importance of those programs. Let's compare that to the revenues coming in this year. The revenues coming in don't even cover the full cost of those programs. So if anyone is out there suggesting that a little nip and a little tuck and a tweak here and a tweak there is going to solve this problem, it just fundamentally won't. We literally have a situation where if we just shut down the entire Federal Government--national defense, every single program out there except the ones I mentioned--we would still come up a bit short. We need to fundamentally change how we are operating this government because, quite honestly, to date we all recognize--Democrats and Republicans--that we have been operating this government on the credit card of our children and our grandchildren. That won't work. It simply can't work any longer. I conclude my comments today by saying I appreciate the opportunity to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and to work with my colleagues on this side of the aisle to try to solve what I consider the most pressing, most urgent need our Nation faces today. Mr. President, I yield the floor for Senator Wyden.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I do not see Senator Baucus in the Chamber, so I will go ahead and get started. My understanding is we will be going back and forth. So I will finish my opening remarks, and then if he arrives I will yield to him. In just a few hours Senators are going to have a distinct choice. Two amendments will be offered to repeal what I think we have all come to regard as a very nonsensical tax paperwork mandate that was included in the health care reform bill. There is broad agreement the 1099 repeal is necessary to remove Federal roadblocks to job creation. But today we have a choice on the two amendments. Today's choice comes down to what I regard as a very straightforward choice, a choice relative to fiscal responsibility, and it is illustrated by the chart I have in the Chamber. My amendment fully offsets the cost of the 1099 repeal. The alternative Baucus amendment piles $19 billion of debt onto the backs of future generations. The irony of this is just unmistakable. On one hand, we have a provision in the health care law that we have all come to regard as crazy, foolishness. Even the President has said it does not make any sense--or words to that effect. On one hand, to repeal it, we are adding to the debt of future generations. On the other hand, my amendment fully offsets that cost. Americans have sounded an alarm regarding Washington's out-of-control spending. They demand we address what is a huge $14 trillion debt. They look at their Federal Government in disbelief when they see Washington continuing to spend money we simply do not have. Yet the alternative amendment proposes to do more of the same. It does not have a single offset. It simply passes the buck, and in this case it passes the buck to our children and grandchildren. Now, both amendments, as you can see from the chart, repeal the 1099 requirement. But in the case of the Johanns amendment, it repeals the 1099 requirement without adding a single penny to our deficit or to the cost of the health care bill. It also has taken care of the issue of the controversial offsets. As my colleagues remember, I listened in September when many came up to me and said: Look, I am with you on repealing this 1099 provision. My small businesses are asking me to get it repealed. But I just cannot go along with your offsets. Well, my new 1099 amendment uses unspent and unobligated funds from Federal accounts to fully pay for the repeal. At the end of every year, there is money left in the accounts of Federal agencies that is not obligated. As someone who was a Cabinet official in a previous life, I can tell you that occurs. My amendment boils down to using about 5 percent of these funds--5 percent. Additionally, the amendment I am offering gives the Office of Management and Budget the ability to decide what programs to pull funds from and in what amounts. This approach is far better than an across- the-board cut, and it allows important programs to continue to be funded. Some are probably going to argue: Whoa, this is historic. This has never been done before. But I want to assure my colleagues, it has been done repeatedly. If my colleagues choose the alternative amendment in a few hours, then the public demand for fiscal responsibility will have fallen on deaf ears. In September, when the Senate first voted down my 1099 amendment, the concern was about the source of the offsets. It was the health care bill, and many said to me: Look, I am with you, but I cannot go along with these offsets. So we changed them. But back then, no one--no one--argued that we simply did not need to pay for the repeal. No one argued that. Yet today the Baucus alternative amendment proposes no pay-fors, adding $19 billion to the national debt, without a dime of budgetary offsets. So after all the hoopla about pay as you go, there is not a single budgetary offset to cover the cost of this amendment. So I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the fully offset Johanns amendment. It will be a vote to protect our job creators. It will be a bipartisan vote because we have all come to agree that this 1099 provision does not make any sense. And, most importantly, when we talk to our constituents about how we did this, we will be able to clearly tell them we paid for it, we took care of the cost of repealing the 1099 amendment with offsets that were a compromise to try to get this done and get this behind us. Several of my colleagues also want to speak on this issue, so I am going to yield 5 minutes of my time to Senator Enzi, followed by 5 minutes to Senator Thune, 5 minutes to Senator Brown, and 5 minutes to Senator Hutchison. So I yield to Senator Enzi.

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time we have on this side?

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, let me address some of the arguments that have been raised. First of all, on this issue of the Baucus amendment simply doing more than the Johanns amendment or that it is especially friendly, here is what I would tell you. We checked into that and we have an e-mail from the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and he says the two amendments do the same thing--they repeal the 1099 requirement. That seems to be especially friendly. As Senator Baucus pointed out, we are both going to accomplish the same thing; that is, we are going to repeal the 1099 requirement. To get to the issue of this being an unprecedented grant of power to the executive branch versus the legislative branch, we also researched that. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 basically gave the Secretary of Commerce the sole discretion to determine from which accounts and in what amounts funds would be rescinded. In other words, the Secretary had sole discretion to decide how to rescind that. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008, when my friends on the other side of the aisle were in control of both the House and the Senate, rescinded more than $192 million in unobligated balances available to NASA and gave the Administrator sole discretion. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2008, again when my friends on the other side of the aisle were in sole control of the House and the Senate, rescinded $33 million in unobligated balances for the National Science Foundation and gave the Director sole discretion. The Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee and Emergency Oil and Gas Guarantee Loan Act rescinded $270 million of nondefense administrative and travel funds and again gave sole discretion to the executive branch. Very simply, the argument that somehow this is new, this is unprecedented, and this has never happened before simply doesn't hold water. I then heard the argument of my colleague from Hawaii, a very respected Member. But I look at these unobligated balances--the Department of Agriculture, $9.6 billion. I ran that Department for about 3 years. He talks about fire suppression. We dealt with fire suppression every year. Yes, some years were worse than others when it came to fire suppression. If we had a year where literally we had to go find additional funding because the fires were worse, we worked through that and we solved the problem. We dealt with that issue when it was presented to us. Here is what I would say. In September, I came to the floor and I said: Look, here is how I want to pay for this. It came out of the health care bill. My colleagues said: Oh, we can't do that, but I am with you on this 1099 repeal. I listened. This repeal is paid for by using money that is literally sitting there in Federal accounts. The other matter I would point to is that the alternative is the Baucus amendment, and here is what the Baucus amendment does. Yes, it handles the problem, just like Congress has been handling the problem for way too long. It says to our children and grandchildren: Out of this multitrillion-dollar annual budget--$1 trillion in deficit, with 40 percent of the money being literally borrowed--we can't find $19 billion. It is too hard. It is too hard, and so our kids and our grandkids are going to have to deal with it. That is exactly what the Baucus amendment does. It says it is too hard. It is going to be the President's own Budget Director who is going to identify the funds that will pay for this. Are my colleagues on the other side suggesting we can't trust that process? Well, if we can't solve this problem and pay for it, how do we ever solve the multitrillion-dollar deficit this country is facing? Congress has allowed the administration to deal with this kind of issue on other occasions. To somehow claim that on this occasion it can't simply misses the point. With that, I yield to Senator Hutchison from Texas, who wishes to speak on this issue.