Mike Johanns

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak to the pending issue, which is the extension of unemployment benefits. The pending proposal basically says we would extend benefits for 14 weeks for all States. There would be an additional 6 weeks attached for those States that had unemployment that exceeded 8.5 percent. You don't have to look very far around this country to see people are struggling. In fact, just an hour or so ago, I was pulled aside by a member of the media. He said: There are numbers coming out tomorrow that indicate some improvement here and there. What would your reaction to that be? I said: You know, until we see improvement with unemployment, we will never convince the American people that things are better. We are hearing 10 percent unemployment. I hope not, but some predict we will actually go over that number around Christmastime or the first of the year. People across this country are struggling. Jobs are being cut. People are being laid off. As I said, many experts are predicting that unemployment could get into the double digits before we see any improvement. I am not here to say the extension of unemployment benefits is the wrong course of action. Not at all. I am not here to dispute any of these assertions about how difficult this economy is for people. But what I am here to do today is to say this: If we are going to consider a bill of this nature, of this importance to people, I believe it is important that we, as Senators, have the ability to come to the floor to submit an amendment, to make our best case on the amendment, to ask for a vote on that amendment, and then see where it ends up. The original stimulus bill--and again I emphasize, the stimulus bill--extended unemployment benefits for 33 weeks. So very clearly the majority of this body, considering the issue of extending unemployment at the time the stimulus was passed, said we should use stimulus funds. I would argue that the same logic applies today. This extension should also be from stimulus funds, and that is what my amendment would simply say. Here are the reasons why: The stimulus bill, quite simply, did not provide the jobs that were promised. Put forth whatever excuse you want to put forth. Argue that maybe you didn't think the economy was as bad as it is, although I must admit I find that hard to imagine. But whatever the argument, the stimulus bill did not provide the promised jobs. The bill in front of us today would do this: It would levy a tax on our job creators--our businesses--of $2.4 billion to finance it. It is an 18-month tax on small businesses, which are the backbone of our job creators and certainly the backbone of our economy in the State of Nebraska. The interesting thing about this extension of unemployment benefits is that it would expire in December but the taxes would live on for month after month after that expiration. So you see, I think it is appropriate to come to the Senate floor to make the case that we should not be taxing the job creators in order to support those who are out of work and looking for a job. We should be encouraging those job creators to do all they can to add another job to bring these people back to employment. To make this relevant to the citizens back home in Nebraska, this will have a $17 million impact on our businesses. That is $17 million that will not be spent on creating a single new job. It is $17 million that won't be spent to hire new workers. I have talked to many of these businesses in our State, and they are saying to me: Mike, we are doing all we can to try to keep people employed. I don't want to do layoffs or any more layoffs, they tell me. But what we are saying to businesses is: We know you are struggling, we know you are fighting this brave battle to keep these families with a job, but here is another tax extension, and could you also go out and hire some new workers? This is simply out of touch--exactly what Washington was criticized for during our August townhall meetings. A lot of jobs could be created if we expand this from my small State of Nebraska to a nationwide phenomena. Think of the jobs that could be created with $2.4 billion spent on salaries instead of on taxes. I have this amendment which basically says this: A more sensible approach would be to use a very small portion of the unspent stimulus money to finance this extension. Don't tax these small businesses. The stimulus was sold as a shot in the arm. It was going to jump-start the economy. But that goal has proven very elusive. In fact, it has even been very difficult to get the money flowing. And don't take Mike Johanns' word on this. The Congressional Budget Office says that some of the stimulus money won't even be spent until 2018, 9 years from now. CBO predicts $22 billion will be spent in 2014, about 5 years from now. I don't know a single person who could argue that is a shot in the arm. The Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, recently said: Most analysts predict that the fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth in the second and third quarters of 2009. She goes on to say: By mid 2010, the fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to growth. This baffles and frustrates the American people. Piling more taxes on people who hire to help those without jobs makes no sense when you recognize that originally a portion of the stimulus money was set aside to extend unemployment. Why not use a small--very small-- portion of the overall sum to provide an extension? Mr. President, I just want the opportunity to have an amendment that we can vote on, to be able to make the case that my amendment is a better alternative than what we are doing today. It uses unobligated stimulus funds to pay for the extension. It just simply says to the Office of Management and Budget: Go to the unused accounts--and having been a Cabinet member myself, I will tell you that those funds will be found--and allocate that money to help these people instead of taxing the job creators. My amendment requires only 1 percent--I repeat, 1 percent--of the original stimulus to pay for unemployment benefits. Why not use the money parked in these accounts--which literally is years away from being allocated--to stimulate this economy? I would respectfully argue that my option gives all Americans a break. It allows the unemployed workers to have that important safety net while they struggle to find a job; it helps businesses that are fighting to stay open and to keep their employees in place, to keep that job in the family, and, my hope, to hire new workers; and it allows us to use taxpayer dollars--taxpayers who are tired of seeing their tax dollars wasted--in a way that I believe they would approve of. Given the opportunity to submit this amendment on the floor of the Senate, I could ask for its support and we could send a message to the American people that we are listening to their concerns. This amendment immediately puts money back into the economy to pay the bills or wages and to put food on the table. Unfortunately, it appears increasingly likely that I will not be allowed to offer the amendment. Mr. President, I have not been here a long time. I have been here about the same time as the Presiding Officer. But I have to tell you, one of the things that impresses me so much about this great body, this deliberative Senate, is that we have the ability, whether we are in the majority or the minority, to offer an idea, to craft an amendment-- oftentimes that we get from a citizen back home--and to come to the floor and offer that amendment, make our best case, and then get a vote. It is a remarkable system. But what is happening these days is that precious right is being taken away from us. I think this amendment makes sense. There may be many who will disagree with me. There will be many who will agree with me. All I am asking for is that I be given the right to offer the amendment, to make the case, and then to get a vote on this idea. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this resolution to commemorate 40 years of membership by women in the National FFA Organization and to celebrate the achievements and contributions of female FFA members. It was 40 years ago, during the 1969 National FFA Convention, that delegates voted to allow women to join the FFA. Today, 41 percent of all members of the National FFA Organization are women, and more than 50 percent of leadership positions in the National FFA are held by women. In my home State of Nebraska, more than 800 females have received their American FFA Degrees, the highest honor that can be awarded to an FFA member. To be eligible for the American Degree, members must have earned and productively invested $7,500 through a supervised agricultural experience program where FFA members live out their motto of learning by doing. American Degree recipients must also make it their mission to demonstrate outstanding leadership abilities and community involvement. More than 2,400 women in Nebraska have been awarded State FFA Degrees for their accomplishments in their local chapters and agricultural education classes. Nebraska also boasts more than 260 female State Proficiency winners and 5 female National Proficiency winners. These students represent the best of the best, having achieved the highest level of excellence in their chosen fields. Ninety women in Nebraska have served as State FFA Officers, with 8 serving as President. Four Nebraska females have served as National FFA Officers. These leaders have invested their time and talents in building influential relationships with members and growing the Organization. The contributions of female members have helped the National FFA Organization to become a premier student leadership organization, comprised of more than 507,000 members in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The FFA's mission is to make a positive difference in the lives of students by developing their potential for premier leadership, personal growth, and career success through agriculture education. Today I am proud to offer a resolution to recognize the positive contributions female members have made to achieve FFA's goals of proficient agricultural leadership and advocacy, community citizenship, volunteerism, and cooperation. I congratulate the National FFA Organization for 40 years of membership by women and for its role in developing tomorrow's leaders.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. JOHANNS. I rise to talk about an amendment that should come as no surprise to my colleagues. The amendment is simple and straightforward. It is an amendment I have offered on a number of occasions that has been approved by this body. It prohibits any Federal funds from going to ACORN or any of its subsidiaries. This amendment I have offered today was offered on three prior appropriations bills. Each time my amendment has gained significant bipartisan support: 83 votes the first time, 85 votes the second time, and by voice vote a third time. It is important we continue to take this action to prohibit funding in each of the remaining appropriations bills because ACORN is still eligible to receive Federal dollars from many other sources. For any of my colleagues who might put forward the argument that ACORN typically does not get funding from the CJS appropriations bill, we can't be so sure. The fact is, ACORN has the opportunity to get money from various Federal pots that we could never have envisioned. For example, a public notice was sent out by the Department of Homeland Security on October 2 of this year announcing that ACORN was the recipient of an almost $1 million grant for funds typically reserved for fire departments. Remarkable. Who knew that ACORN specialized in firefighting? I never would have thought ACORN could win a grant designed for fire safety and prevention. But, lo and behold, that is what happened only a few days ago. This happened after the Senate took several stands against providing Federal funds to this group and after House action. Until a full government investigation is launched and completed into ACORN, no taxpayer money should be used to fund their activities. I urge all colleagues to once again support my amendment. The identical amendment has passed twice on strong bipartisan votes with over 80 Senators voting in favor, and the third time it passed by a voice vote. Where Senators stand on this issue is now well known. For the record, I respectfully suggest that we can agree upon this amendment by voice vote at the appropriate time. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that we call up amendment No. 2393.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise to object. My understanding is there is an objection on our side of the aisle relative to this approach. Thus, I rise this evening to object.

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise briefly this evening to speak about this amendment. The amendment would help maintain, in fiscal year 2010, the current level of funding for the National Guard's counterdrug efforts throughout the United States. It is important legislation. As a Governor, as a mayor, I can tell you what I think everybody knows. One of the toughest problems we face in this Nation is fighting drug abuse and addiction and putting the tools in place to deal with that. We all know firsthand that drug addiction rips families apart and tears communities down. It is accompanied by an endless parade of violence. Reducing drug abuse and crime was a top priority of mine as mayor and Governor. In part because of steps we took, we were able to bring crime numbers down. I am proud of that. I know drugs are not a unique challenge to Nebraska. It is a national challenge. Meth distributors commonly commit violent crimes as they traffic in methamphetamine. Meth users often commit property crimes, burglary, and identity theft. This drug is an enormous burden on public health departments and treatment centers in our region. Meth-related violence and child abuse have also strained local foster care systems, not only in our State but in other States. Because of its highly addictive nature, it takes longer treatment programs and it has a very high recidivism rate. Treatment, needless to say, is enormously difficult. In the face of this problem, we need to keep up our pressure on drug trafficking groups and work on providing more consistent funding to Federal, State, and local drug task forces. The National Guard's Counterdrug Support Program has been supporting law enforcement and community-based drug reduction coalitions now for 20 years. However, this program often faces considerable uncertainty over its funding, and that hampers operations. Consistent funding would allow police to keep many of the same officers in the drug task force. This would improve communication between multiple different law enforcement agencies, and it would increase their effectiveness. Rural States are especially hurt by cuts and uncertainty in their counterdrug budgets, since they often have a great deal of territory to cover with very small departments. To get to the crux of this amendment, my amendment would help address these problems by helping restore counterdrug funding back to its level last year. We are just asking for a level budget. Last year, Congress added $22.5 million to the President's level of funding. The year before it added $20 million. While the Defense authorization this year authorized an additional $30 million in counterdrug support, it was not included in the appropriations bill. This money goes across our country, all 50 States, and some of our territories. Our counterdrug operations depend on the funds. If the current shortfall continues, the National Guard would not be able to effectively support law enforcement in their fight against drugs. Our law enforcement and National Guard personnel must be given the tools they need to carry on this battle. Tonight, in a very large appropriations bill, I ask what I believe is a very necessary amount of money to help fight this war on drugs in your State, Mr. President, in mine, and across this country. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. My hope is there will be a very bipartisan, strong statement that we stand behind this very important piece of this budget. For the record, if it is acceptable--and I don't know if there is an agreement on this or not--but I want to indicate for the record that I will be more than happy to move this amendment with a voice vote.

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

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, then I do raise an objection. And here is the point, in fairness to the process here. There are many who believe that the TARP money, which was originally designed to buy toxic assets, has drifted so far away from its original purpose that we haven't kept faith with the taxpayer who paid the bill for all this. On the other hand, the stimulus--which, incidentally, I did not support-- had money in it to do highways and that sort of thing, and that is where the objection is coming from. So I do stand to object, and I continue the objection.

Mr. JOHANNS. Before we go to the reading, if I could send a modification to the desk.

Mr. JOHANNS. I thank the Senator from Illinois for that question, but here is what I would say. You can restart the debate on the whole stimulus plan, and I can point to you the promises that were made of all the jobs that were going to be created, and I can point to you the evidence that in fact that has not occurred. But the argument tonight was, look, if we can just get our hands on some TARP money, then we can do all these things. And we are saying, well, look, if the promise of the stimulus was to create jobs, let's use the stimulus. Why not use that fund? But fundamentally here is the problem. People came to the American people and said: Look, our credit is melting down, our financial system is in serious shape, and the solution to that problem is to buy toxic assets. And low and behold we bought car companies, we bailed out insurance companies, and it just goes on and on. And that is why the objection is coming from over here because this isn't anything near what TARP was intended to do. I thank the Chair.

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I ask that amendment No. 2555 be called up. With that, I am sending a modification to the desk.

Mr. JOHANNS. Let me, if I might, through the Chair, inquire of the Senator from California if the Senator would renew her request with one change: to include a different second-degree amendment from Senator Vitter which would provide an offset from non-defense and non-veteran stimulus funds.

Mr. JOHANNS

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

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, many have come to this Chamber and have talked about their constituents and the concerns that have been expressed to us about health care and how their families would be directly impacted. The frustration driving many of those individuals who have written to us, picked up the phone, attended a townhall meeting continues. They worry we are not listening. The biggest misconception is that those who are raising concerns about the President's health care proposals believe that somehow they are defending the status quo. That could not be further from the truth. We can all agree that health care costs are rising at rates that create hardships across our country. They impact families and businesses, and ultimately they are not sustainable for Federal and State budgets. There are many things I believe upon which there would be very universal agreement. For example, I support insurance market reforms that increase access to insurance for people who have preexisting conditions. Many of us do in the Senate. I support allowing small businesses to band together to bring down health insurance premiums. Many here do. I support subsidies for those who truly cannot afford insurance to help them buy down their premiums, their deductibles or copays. Again, many here could. I support real malpractice reform that would curb costs by reducing defensive medicine. Again, many here do. These commonsense reforms and others we could mention could be the cornerstone of what I believe would be a truly bipartisan solution to our health care crisis. But I believe the current proposals have veered in a very different direction. I cannot support so-called reform that lowers the quality of our health care, compromises the doctor-patient relationship, and drastically increases costs for Americans. Yet I worry that the provisions working their way through the Senate Finance Committee appear to do precisely that--increase costs and jeopardize quality. I do not believe it is the kind of health care reform Americans have sent us to Washington to enact. In our current economic crisis, the last thing American families need is to see more of their paychecks going to pay taxes. This legislation presents a ``darned if you do, darned if you don't'' scenario. It taxes you if you have insurance and it taxes you if you don't. People who depend on medical devices will see prices rise. So will individuals who take prescription drugs. States will have to raise money to pay for what I regard as an unfair unfunded Medicare mandate. Having been a Governor, I can tell you there are limited choices in State budgets, and State budgets are in crisis today. They are either going to have to raise taxes to somehow find the revenue to deal with that mandate, or they are going to have to do something equally unpleasant; that is, cut programs. Which State programs do you think Americans will want to sacrifice so Washington can have its way with the States in the Medicaid unfunded mandate? I can tell you from experience, cutting programs is an impossible decision. So is raising taxes. States should not be put in a difficult position again and again by an overreaching Federal Government. Employers will be taxed in order to pay for required health care insurance for their employees. These taxes will create financial heartburn that no doctor's prescription can ease. This legislation will require every American to have health insurance, with limited exceptions, and not just any health insurance. It requires health insurance that meets specific qualifications the bureaucracy in Washington will dictate. The Finance Committee bill would require you to spend a certain share of your income before becoming eligible for health insurance subsidies. Under the original Finance Committee proposal, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that an individual who makes $32,400 a year--not a lot of money--would be required to pay $4,100 in health care insurance premiums before becoming eligible for a subsidy. That individual would also be required to pay, on average, $1,600 in copayments and deductibles. These individuals would be required, through the government mandate, again, to spend 18 percent of their income on health insurance. Surprisingly, the cheaper catastrophic coverage some would prefer would not be considered a so-called qualified plan; therefore, not an option. Furthermore, if you choose not to have health insurance that meets these qualifications, you could be forced to pay out as much as $1,900 in additional taxes per family. The Internal Revenue Service will be knocking on your door to make sure you literally buy into federally dictated health care reform efforts. I have heard from many Nebraskans who feel as if this individual mandate is a direct assault on their freedom. Most people do not like the notion that Washington tells them how to live their lives. Imposing an individual mandate tax rubs Americans the wrong way. Not only are we telling them they must buy insurance, but we are telling them what kind of insurance they must buy. I know some, including our President, argue this is not a tax; rather, it is simply a shared responsibility. The very language in the Finance Committee plan clearly states this is a tax, and it brings in about $20 billion. Where is the President's promise that he would not raise taxes on individuals who make under $250,000 a year? Well, it is nonexistent. Last week, this was made clear during the Finance Committee markup. When asked about the effect of this individual mandate tax on the middle class, the chief of staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation responded: We would expect that some people paying would make less than $250,000. For hard-working families, the individual mandates will load them up with a fancy benefit plan covering services they may not want or need. They will be required to buy it or their government will penalize them. This is a complex and a fundamental shift in how we approach health care in our great country, indeed, in how much the government dictates the health care decisions of each and every American. Furthermore, this legislation raises money by taxing insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, and prescription drug manufacturers. Does anybody doubt for a minute that will be passed on to the average guy? There is little doubt that these increased taxes will lead to higher premiums, more expensive medical equipment, and higher drug prices for Americans. These industries will compensate for the added tax by raising prices, ultimately raising the cost of health care in this country. Additionally, this plan is likely to decrease research and development in the health care sector, which has been a major driver of innovation and improvement in health care quality. Creating policy that decreases the quality of our health care makes no sense. It is counterproductive. Requiring employers to provide health insurance to their employees or be fined or taxed does not make sense. The Finance Committee proposal is expected to collect $27 billion worth of those fines or taxes. In tough economic times, with unemployment almost in double digits and forecasts to go into double digits, putting more requirements and mandates on job creators and job sustainers is counterproductive. Employers will think twice about hiring more workers. There is little doubt that these increased taxes will lead to higher insurance premiums, more expensive medical equipment, and higher drug prices for Americans. These industries will compensate by raising their prices. They simply will. I fear low-income Americans will suffer the most. They need those jobs. We must carefully evaluate the details of this legislation and ensure that our attempts to make things better, which I believe we can do in a bipartisan way, do not ultimately make things worse. I suggest that in tough economic times, creating legislation that increases the cost of health care, that raises taxes is not true health care reform. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. JOHANNS

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

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise to present amendment No. 2484. Actually, this is an amendment we have acted on in previous appropriations bills. In fact, this is the amendment that deals with no funding for the organization ACORN. In the previous Interior bill this passed in a very bipartisan way with a 85-to-11 vote; in the Housing and Transportation bill, again a very bipartisan vote, 83 to 7. This is an amendment that has overwhelming support of this body. My comments relative to this organization are a matter of the record. I do not feel a need to lay those out again, but I want to present this amendment on this appropriations bill and we have reached an understanding that this can be accepted by voice vote. I want to indicate that will be acceptable to me.

Mr. JOHANNS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask the current amendment be set aside and we call up amendment No. 2484.

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

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, Steve and Shelley Brune are extraordinary Nebraskans who made a commitment to open their hearts and home to a foster child, which led to a remarkable story of love and compassion. In September 1999, they welcomed Jonathon into their home as a foster child. In February 2001, Jonathon's biological brother, James, was also removed from the home. The Brune family recognized the importance of keeping siblings together and agreed to unite the brothers by welcoming James into their home as a second foster child. The Brunes worked closely with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, in efforts to reunite Jonathon and James with their biological parents. When HHS determined that reunification was not in the boys' best interest, Steve and Shelley made a permanent commitment to the boys by adopting them; Jonathon on July 19, 2001 and James on January 17, 2002. In October 2007, the biological sister of James and Jonathon, Mary Ann, was removed from the home. HHS contacted the Brune family to discuss the possibility of once again becoming foster parents. The Brunes recognized that this child needed a loving home and would benefit from being with her brothers. For a third time, they admirably opened their hearts and home, welcoming Mary Ann on July 15, 2008. In April 2009, another sibling, Madeline Grace, was born and was also removed from the home. The Brune family showed tremendous compassion and devotion to the children of this family by agreeing to welcome Madeline Grace into their family. Steve and Shelley are currently in the process of adopting both Mary Ann and Madeline Grace. It is with heartfelt admiration that I nominate Steve and Shelley Brune as Adoption Angels. Their capacity to love and care for these four children is an inspiration and worthy example for others to follow. My hope is that their story inspires others to consider opening their hearts and homes to the many children awaiting adoption, in need of loving families. May God bless Shelley, Steve, Jonathan, James, Mary Ann, Madeline Grace, and all adoptive parents who give children the gift of a loving family.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I wish to start out this morning by complimenting the distinguished Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from South Dakota. They have raised some excellent points. As I have listened to them, I have to tell you, I think they have offered a lot to move the debate forward. I rise today to shine the light on what I consider budgetary gimmicks and omissions in the Finance Committee health care proposal. Both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree that one of the things we need to do in accomplishing true health care reform is to do it in a fiscally responsible way. We all went back home in August, and I heard the message very loud and clear from Nebraskans. They want honesty and full transparency as we attempt to achieve health care reform. Americans believed the President when he said he wanted an open and transparent process. We all agree on that. Unfortunately, what we have is not transparent, and I argue that it is based on false assumptions. Honestly, an American family would have to hire a whole team of accountants to understand all that is hidden in the Finance Committee draft. While the CBO has scored the bill as $774 billion, the real cost of the bill--and that cost is moving up every day--is closer to $1.7 trillion over 10 years, as the previous two Senators have pointed out. What its supporters neglect to tell you is that the main spending provisions in this proposal don't go into effect until 2013. That is right, the American public will have to wait 4 years before most of the new initiatives even get off the ground. So none of us should be surprised when the American people really laugh at an arbitrary deadline of the end of the week or the first of next week for finalizing committee action. They don't understand the need to hurry. The proponents claim it is such a crisis that we should rush through. Yet their fixes don't take effect for 4 years. You can understand the American public's frustration and skepticism. They must watch the evening news--whatever their flavor of news is--and look at the Capitol dome and ask the question: What is going on? What is happening out there? They have to be scratching their heads in amazement. If they ran their business or household this way, they would be in bankruptcy. If that weren't enough to fill an entire gymnasium full of townhall participants, there is, unfortunately, much more. The proposal requires new taxes on everything from medical device manufacturers, health insurance premiums, and pharmaceutical manufacturers, topped off with additional Medicare cuts of about $500 billion and, of course, unfunded mandates on the States in the form of the expansion of Medicaid, which I am all too familiar with as a former Governor. Let me translate this. Higher taxes will be passed on to the American people. All these taxes, these fees, and these mandates will only increase the cost of health care. They don't decrease it when all this is passed on to the American consumers. While the promised benefits don't kick in until year 4, the taxes and fees, interestingly enough, start right away, almost on day one. In effect, the bill is structured to impose 10 years and $848 billion worth of new taxes and fees, and you get in return 6 years of additional benefits under this bill. The creative accounting, unfortunately, only appears to get cheers inside the beltway. Yet the average American thinks we don't have a clue. Another hidden cost is the new mandate on States through an expansion of Medicaid. I wish to spend a moment on that. Partial costs to expand the Medicaid Program up to 133 percent of the poverty limit will be put on the States. This unfunded mandate will cost States--and estimates will vary--about $42 billion. Of course, that is not built into the cost estimate, not because the American people don't pay for it, because they will, but because it doesn't fall on the Federal budget. Who gets to pay the costs here? Well, obviously, once again, it will fall on the American people. I come from a State that is fiscally responsible. We have only two ways to deal with this kind of issue because our constitution prohibits us from borrowing money. What a unique concept; Nebraska doesn't borrow money. We have only two choices: we can cut programs or we can raise taxes. If we cut programs, things such as education, senior initiatives, infrastructure projects, prisons to keep the bad guys out of society, and other very valuable programs could find their budgets destroyed. In these times of tight budgets, States have already slashed their budgets. They are down to the bone, and they are trying to figure out how they will balance next year's budget. I suggest the Federal Government giving them another layer of spending is not the answer. The other alternative is to raise taxes, hit the consumer again. But that is not the right way to go either. But it seems that what we are doing with this mother of all unfunded mandates is making this choice inevitable. Folks in Nebraska and across the country are going to resent seeing their State paying higher taxes because the Federal Government put them in this fiscal straitjacket. In addition, one of the main pay-fors in this legislation is $400 billion, $500 billion in Medicare cuts. Despite the fact that the Medicare trustees report projects that Medicare will be bankrupt by 2017, none of the $400 billion goes toward shoring up our already pending fiscal crisis. The false promise being made is that we can both fund this new entitlement with Medicare money and keep our commitment to senior citizens. I am not naive enough to buy that bag of goods and neither are our seniors. We are asking them to choose the prize behind the curtain when the prize is a goat. I am deeply concerned that we are compounding the problem by not reinvesting these dollars back into Medicare. That is why I hope the Finance Committee will see the light today and adopt important amendments by the junior Senators from Kansas and Nevada. Even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office Director admitted yesterday that these cuts to Medicare will decrease current insurance benefits that our seniors now enjoy. Finally, this Finance Committee proposal is built on false assumptions when it comes to cost containment. The bill is based on the fantasyland assumption that scheduled sometimes double-digit payment cuts to medical professionals will be allowed to take place. The history is very much the opposite. We do the doctor fix on an annual basis. Any Senator who votes for this Finance Committee proposal should be required to publicly state their support for a 25-percent cut in physician reimbursement rates beginning in 2 years. Their proposals credit themselves free money by assuming savings in this area. Yet they know Congress waives the Budget Act, waives pay-go, and suspends these cuts year in and year out with a lot of support, I might add. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office states: These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remained unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation. For example, the sustainable growth rate, SGR, mechanism governing Medicare's payments to physicians has frequently been modified to avoid reductions in those payments. Therefore, I am not going to count on Congress acting any differently in the near future, and any cost estimate that assumes otherwise, I say, is not based on reality. We all know what they say about good intentions, but I still believe you do not spend money until you know from where the money is coming. The American public simply deserves a very transparent discussion about our current and future actions, what they are going to cost, and what they will lead to in terms of our health care system instead of a house of cards. The American people have asked us to be transparent. They know we have to make tough decisions. They just want to understand the ramifications of what we are deciding. That means they want us to read the bill. They want us to do that before we vote. They want us to have a full picture of how this will affect budget deficits and the fiscal outlook. And they want us to communicate that to them. The American people want to know how this proposal will impact them and what it will do to the current health care system and their costs. Basically, they want us to know all the details before we rush into a vote. That means we need the time to look at this bill. This is going to be a 1,000-page bill, a Senate Finance Committee with no legislative language that is working now, a plan to consider almost 500 amendments, and yet they want to get it done this week. Mr. President, it is time to call a timeout and get this right. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, the importance of the senior caregiving community cannot be overstated. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in the United States, 35.9 million people are 65 years of age or older, which is 12.4 percent of the population. The U.S. Census Bureau also states that with over 8,000 Americans turning 60 years old every day, the number of people over the age of 65 is expected to more than double in the next 50 years to 86.7 million. Furthermore, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the 85 and older population is projected to reach 9.6 million in 2030 and double again to 20.9 million in 2050. A report by Evercare, entitled Study of Caregivers in Decline: A Close-up Look at the Health Risk of Caring for a Loved One, explains that in order to address the surging population of seniors who have significant needs for in-home care, the field of senior caregiving will continue to grow. Thus, while senior caregivers are playing an important role now, this profession will be even more important in the future. The Dilenschneider Group, Inc., estimates that 25 percent of all seniors need some level of assistance to complete their daily activities. Senior companions provide a wide range of services, such as medication reminders, housekeeping, meal preparation, travel assistance, and general companionship. If we can keep seniors in their homes, we accomplish a number of goals. We preserve the independence and dignity of our seniors. That alone is significant. But, it also saves money in a health care system facing skyrocketing costs and soon- to-be insolvent programs. The longer a senior is able to provide for his or her own care at home, the better. Adequate in-home care has become even more vital with the increase of dementia in our elderly population. The Alzheimer's Association estimates that 4.5 million people in the U.S. have Alzheimer's today and that this number will increase to between 11.3 and 16 million by 2050. The Alzheimer's Association further explains that 70 percent of people with Alzheimer's and other dementias live at home. These individuals can utilize in-home care provided by senior caregivers for assistance with their daily activities. Senior caregiver services are a much preferred alternative for seniors who desire to maintain their independence. They also offer families peace of mind, knowing their loved one is being taken care of in a safe and affordable manner. I am very pleased with the passage of my resolution to honor senior caregivers and the private home care industry. According to The Dilenschneider Group, Inc., an estimated 44 million adults in this country provide care to adult relatives or friends, and an estimated 725,000 non-family, privately paid individuals are senior caregivers. The Department of Labor estimates that in 2006, paid caregivers worked a total of 835 million hours. I salute those who provide quality care for so many Americans. I also salute the cooperative effort of both unpaid family caregivers and paid caregivers to serve the needs of seniors living in their own homes. We need to examine Federal policy alternatives to make caregiving for seniors more accessible and more affordable for families. This resolution encourages the Secretary of Health and Human Services to continue working to educate aging Americans about the assistance options available for seniors. I thank the senior caregivers for their service to Americans throughout this Nation, and I am pleased my colleagues agreed to support this resolution.