Mike Johanns

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 2394.

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, this morning I presented the argument on this amendment to the Senate. The question was raised: We don't think there is money that comes out of this budget relative to this organization, ACORN. I went back to the office and did some research. This is a bill that controls hundreds of grant programs. After studying that, it appears I was right. ACORN gets money out of this appropriations. Moments ago my staff brought me information that would suggest that ACORN has, in fact, received funding. The EPA is a part of this bill. If Members go to this bill at page 182, they will see the EPA is there. We went to the EPA Web site. Here is what the Web site says, referencing a grant program, that it is a collaboration of nonprofit organizations led by Ellis Hamilton.

Mr. JOHANNS. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I compliment both Senators who just spoke, the Senator from California and the Senator from Tennessee. You underscore why we are so proud to live in this great country and the importance of these resources. Also, as a former Secretary of Agriculture, I know the importance of adequate funding for firefighting. Without it, our forests are in serious jeopardy. I wanted to express that. I rise today to talk about something that is enormously important. Three days ago, I was here on the Senate floor urging my colleagues to vote in favor of an amendment I offered to another appropriations bill, the Transportation and Housing Appropriations bill. The amendment had a very specific purpose. The purpose was to prohibit funds from going to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as ACORN. I am very pleased to report that, in a true display of bipartisanship, 82 of my colleagues joined with me in voting in favor of protecting taxpayer dollars by voting for the amendment. This was a significant and important vote in this body for a number of reasons. Such a strong bipartisan vote sent a very powerful message that the Senate is serious about eliminating the flow of taxpayer funds to an organization that can best be described as being in an absolute free fall when it comes to allegations of illegal activity--illegal activity that, in many respects, is funded with taxpayer dollars. Senators came to this floor a couple of days ago and they threw aside partisan loyalty in favor of prohibiting funds to an organization besieged by allegations of fraud and corruption and employee wrongdoing. Bottom line: My colleagues--I am so proud of them--answered the call to defend taxpayers against waste, fraud, and abuse. But because of the limitations of that amendment, our job simply is not complete. Of course, in order to comply with the germaneness rules, we could only do so much with that amendment. Therefore, I come here again today to offer the same amendment to this bill. The amendment to the T-HUD bill was a first step. The overwhelming vote on Monday stopped the flow of funds for transportation or housing funding that would otherwise go to ACORN. At least in terms of Senate action, there is more process left there. Unfortunately, ACORN is still eligible to receive Federal dollars from innumerable sources in the Federal budget. That is why I am here today to offer the identical amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill and to call on my colleagues again to stand up for the American taxpayers. There is unbelievable evidence that ACORN or its estimated 360-plus affiliates could be eligible for Department of Interior funding. The following words appear in the text of this bill 193 times: contracts, grants, nonprofits, and cooperative agreements. There are so many ways ACORN can receive funds from the Interior bill. For example, ACORN's subsidiaries openly publicize their advocacy for environmental causes. ACORN groups are heavily involved in community redevelopment, and so is the Department of the Interior. The links are obvious. They are undeniable. In fact, on page 66 of the bill, you can--just to pull out specific language there included for the Great Lakes restoration project that would give money to nonprofits for ``planning, monitoring, and implementing.'' This is a project that President Obama has appointed a specific person to oversee. Do any of us have a certainty that ACORN won't receive any of that money? I certainly don't. ACORN is able to tap into taxpayer moneys from so many other ways besides competitive grants. They or their web of affiliates are able to work out memoranda of understanding, cooperative agreements, and even subcontracts with the Federal Government. Additionally, States that receive grants from the Federal Government can funnel money to ACORN affiliates, and there is very little oversight. My amendment will stop that. It will stop the money--the taxpayer dollars--being directed to this group. The question before us today is whether my colleagues will again come to the floor and say this activity is wrong, it is damning. We need to stand and say that no money will go to a group engaged in this activity. Last night, I was watching a news program, and yet another videotape surfaced of ACORN employee activity. It was shocking. This videotape displayed someone saying to an ACORN employee that they intended to bring underage minors into this country from other countries for the purpose of engaging in prostitution. There was active involvement by the ACORN employee in how this might happen, even to the extent of describing the contacts that this person had. I want to say that we cannot relent, just because some taxpayer money was safeguarded, until a full government investigation is launched and completed, and if it turns out with no problem, so be it, but we cannot rest until that is done and we are assured and we can assure our citizens back home that no taxpayer money is being used in this organization. It doesn't make sense to just stop with the Transportation and Housing Appropriations bill. We need to stand up and prohibit all sources of Federal funding and any possibility of Federal funding going to ACORN. I will wrap up with a statement of deep respect for what my colleagues did on Monday. I believe it was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to step in here to the floor and cast a vote and say: Enough is enough, it stops here, it stops today. We need to do everything we can to assure our taxpayers that there is no possibility somebody can access this funding from ACORN. My hope is we will come together as we did Monday and that we will do the right thing. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, this is such an important issue. This is an issue that people all across the country are watching on the Senate floor. Therefore, I feel very strongly that if there were ever an opportunity for Senators to come to the floor and cast a vote in a rollcall fashion, this is one to make a very strong statement again about ACORN not receiving this funding. I appreciate the offer of the Senator from California, but I must insist, because of the nature of what we are dealing with--the claims of alleged wrongdoing, the history of wrongdoing with employees from this organization, the videotapes, the potential to access the funding--that we need a rollcall vote on this issue.

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, speaking to my colleague from California, let me say that I appreciate the Senator's offer of accepting this by unanimous consent. I appreciate the Senator's claim that she believes there is no way they can access funding. But I will tell you that I have operated a Federal Department myself--a very large department--where we administered millions and billions of dollars of grants and loans, et cetera. Once that appropriations bill is passed, the Senator knows and I know that unless there is some real trouble, we are free at the departmental level to pretty much administer the money. So there cannot be a guarantee that they won't get money out of this program. The second thing I will offer here is this: This is not one of those issues that just comes along. This involves an organization that has had a history of very serious problems. I could not feel more strongly that the American people want us to come to the floor and cast a vote on this issue. The final thing I want to say is this: I feel this is an important issue. There is a way to solve this problem so that I don't have to come down on every appropriations bill. We will be introducing a bill today--and we have reached out in a very bipartisan way to Democrats and Republicans, asking for people to join in this bill--that says simply that across the entire Federal Government no money for ACORN. My hope is we can pass that bill expeditiously and we can get that into effect. I would like nothing more than to avoid having to come down here on each and every appropriations bill. Again, I appreciate the offer, but this is an important vote to constituents all across the United States. I think we owe it to them to show how we are going to vote on this issue.

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

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2394.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. According to the report: Operationally, ACORN is a shell game played in 120 cities, 43 states and the District of Columbia through a complex structure designed to conceal illegal activities, to use taxpayer and tax exempt dollars for partisan political purposes, and to distract investigators. Structurally, ACORN is a chess game in which senior management is shielded from accountability by multiple layers of volunteers and compensated employees who serve as pawns to take the fall for every bad act. There is a history here, and it is a sad history. In 1998, an ACORN employee was arrested for falsifying voter registration forms. In 1999, Philadelphia authorities found hundreds of fraudulent registration forms by ACORN. In October of 2008, the pattern continues. ACORN's Nevada offices were raided by Federal agents, and in 2009 their Las Vegas field director was charged with voter registration fraud. In May 2009, seven ACORN employees were charged in Pittsburgh for voter registration fraud. I cite this sad, tragic history because the events of the last week were not isolated, and I do not believe it was accidental that this video caught ACORN employees delivering the same message in different cities. They magnify a troubling, systemic, and criminal pattern. In fact, they serve as a public window into an organization that is besieged by corruption, by fraud, and by illegal activities, all committed--all committed--on the taxpayers' dime. Mr. President, I would suggest to you, if we had the capability to ask every taxpayer in America: Is this how you want your money spent, we would have a nearly unanimous count saying: Absolutely not. At a time when we are experiencing record deficits and the economy is struggling every day to get back on its feet, how in the world can anyone come to this floor of the Senate and say: I want to cast my vote to continue to fund this organization with taxpayer dollars, hard- earned dollars by American families, when so many questions of legitimacy reign? I think the answer to that is simple. I do not see how anybody could cast that vote. To do so, in my judgment, would ignore the proof, and it would also ignore our responsibility to protect taxpayers from waste and fraud and abuse. I would go so far as to say that I respect that some of my colleagues believe the work done by ACORN in some communities might be valuable. But I would respectfully suggest that the problems riddling this organization, in office after office, cannot and should not be trivialized. This is an opportunity for the Senate to stand up and say: Enough is enough, just as the Census Bureau did. As Judge Richard Zoller said, after holding an ACORN employee liable for election law violations: Somebody has to go after ACORN. Well, I suggest today, on the floor of the Senate, that ``somebody'' is each and every U.S. Senator. That ``somebody'' is each Senator, who now has the ability to come to the floor and say to the taxpayers back home: We will not tolerate this any longer. Until a full investigation is launched into ACORN, no taxpayer money should be used to fund its activities. A vote in favor of my amendment is a vote in favor of the taxpayer and a vote against the status quo. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment pertaining to ACORN, otherwise known as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Records will indicate that ACORN has received $53 million in Federal funds--taxpayer money--since 1994. In the current transportation and housing appropriations bill, ACORN is eligible to add to that number, to receive millions more in taxpayer funds from several different accounts and purposes. It could receive money through mortgage counseling, it could receive money through CDBG, community development block grants, and it could receive money from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The people of Nebraska sent me to Washington to protect them from waste and fraud and abuse, and they asked me to change the status quo. I take that responsibility very seriously. That is why my amendment would prohibit one more penny--one more penny--of taxpayer money from going to ACORN in the transportation and housing appropriations bill. The recent news surrounding ACORN is alarming, at a minimum. In fact, it is outrageous. Last week, Miami-Dade prosecutors issued arrest warrants for 11 ACORN employees. The employees are charged with falsifying voter registration cards. A total of 1,400 voter registration cards were turned in, and 888 of those cards were found to be a fake. This means almost three-quarters of the voting cards were fraudulent. Then, damaging news surfaced regarding hidden videotapes at the Baltimore and Washington, DC, ACORN offices. You will not believe this: They feature ACORN employees offering advice on illegal activities, including tax evasion, prostitution, and fraud. Today we find out that a different ACORN office--this time in Brooklyn--also offered advice on the same topics. I would suggest, obviously, this is a pattern of very rotten behavior. Well, the alarm bells are rightly going off. The Census Bureau notified ACORN on Friday that it is severing all ties with the group for all work having to do with the 2010 census. Notwithstanding the fact that is long overdue, I applaud them for that action. The Census letter pulled no punches, and I am quoting: . . . it is clear that ACORN's affiliation with the 2010 Census promotion has caused sufficient concern in the general public, has indeed become a distraction from our mission, and may even become a discouragement to public cooperation, negatively impacting 2010 Census efforts. Unfortunately, we no longer have confidence-- ``We no longer have confidence''-- that our national partnership agreement is being effectively managed through your many local offices. For the reasons stated, we therefore have decided to terminate the partnership. Some may even say today, as amazing as this would sound, that the recent events are isolated, that they are not a fair and accurate representation of ACORN. How you could say that I am not sure, but to these defenders, I urge them to read the 88-page incriminating report published in July by the minority staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It is entitled--and, again, I am quoting, and I have the report here--``Is ACORN Intentionally Structured as a Criminal Enterprise?'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Executive Summary of that report be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 2355 be called up.

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

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment and I yield back all time.

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

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, at 5:30, in a few minutes, we are going to vote on the pending amendment, which is an amendment to bar ACORN from receiving any money from the appropriations bill we are considering. I spoke earlier today, so I will only speak a couple of minutes. I wanted to come to the floor again to underscore the importance of this vote and to underscore the history that brings us here today to take this action. The history is a sad one. On September 9, 2009, Miami-Dade prosecutors issued arrest warrants for 11 ACORN employees. The employees are charged with falsifying voter registration cards. A total of 1,400 voter registration cards were turned in, and 888 of those were found to be fake. That means that almost three-quarters of those cards were fraudulent. Late last week, damaging news surfaced regarding hidden videotapes at the New York, Baltimore, and Washington, DC, ACORN offices. What is the feature on these videotapes? They feature ACORN employees offering advice on a number of illegal activities, including tax evasion, prostitution, and fraud--all with taxpayer dollars. Finally, the Census Bureau notified ACORN on Friday in a letter that it was severing all ties. The Census Bureau has had a bellyful. They severed all ties with this group having to do with the 2010 census. Here is what they said in the letter: . . . it is clear that ACORN's affiliation with the 2010 Census promotion has caused sufficient concern in the general public, has indeed become a distraction from our mission, and may even become a discouragement to public cooperation, negatively impacting the 2010 Census efforts. The letter goes on: Unfortunately, we no longer have confidence that our national partnership agreement is being effectively managed through your many local offices. For the reasons stated, we therefore have decided to terminate the partnership. According to a report published in July by the minority staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, again quoting: Operationally, ACORN is a shell game played in 120 cities, 43 states and the District of Columbia through a complex structure designed to conceal illegal activities, to use taxpayer and tax exempt dollars for partisan political purposes, and to distract investigators. Structurally, ACORN is a chess game in which senior management is shielded from accountability by multiple layers of volunteers and compensated employees who serve as pawns to take the fall for every bad act. It doesn't stop there. In 1998, an ACORN employee was arrested for falsifying voter registration forms. In 1999, Philadelphia authorities found hundreds of fraudulent registration forms by ACORN. In October of 2008, ACORN's Nevada offices were raided by Federal agents and in 2009 their Las Vegas field director--their field director: unbelievable--was charged with voter registration fraud. In May 2009, seven ACORN employees were charged in Pittsburgh for voter registration fraud. To date, nearly 70 ACORN employees have been convicted in 12 States for voter registration fraud. The events of the last week are not isolated. We have only caught them. As Judge Richard Zoller said, after holding an ACORN employee liable for election law violations: Somebody has to go after ACORN. Madam President, I suggest this afternoon that ``somebody'' is each and every Member of the Senate. Until a full investigation is launched into ACORN, no taxpayer money should be used to fund their activities. A vote in favor of my amendment is a vote in favor of the taxpayer and against the status quo. I will just wrap up by saying, if somehow we could bring the taxpayers of America to the Senate floor and ask them: Do you want your taxpayer dollars to continue to fund this organization, with this kind of history, with the videos that have been just released, overwhelmingly, taxpayers would say: Absolutely not. This is our opportunity to stand up against an organization that does not deserve the trust of the American people. Madam President, 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. JOHANNS. Mr. President, Senators have an enormous responsibility when it comes to deciding whether to support or oppose a Supreme Court nominee. We must examine whether the person nominated to the highest court in the land will uphold and defend the principles contained in the Constitution, refrain from judicial activism, respect the rule of law, deliver blind justice to each and every litigant before the Court, and render reasoned decisions that adhere to precedent. This duty has been characterized by many of my colleagues as one of the most important and far reaching decisions a Senator will ever make. I couldn't agree more. I entered into the nomination process of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a woman with an impressive life story and resume, with an open mind and a steadfast resolve to evaluate the nominee's qualifications on an unbiased basis. In fact, having gone through the confirmation process myself before being sworn in as Secretary of Agriculture, I believe that a necessary amount of deference should be given to the President's choices. However, after carefully reviewing Judge Sotomayor's record and speeches as well as closely monitoring her hearing before the Judiciary Committee, I could not support her nomination. There are several areas that concern me with regard to Judge Sotomayor. First, I am concerned that she will not be a neutral umpire. You see, a judge has the duty to preside over a courtroom with no inclination to side with one team over the other. A judge must be able to put aside his or her personal or political agenda before sitting down on that bench. That is because no matter who you are--Black or White, woman or man, rich or poor--every person in this country is entitled to receive equal justice under the law. There is a reason that Lady Justice wears a blindfold. By now, most people are aware of Judge Sotomayor's comments that a ``wise Latina woman'' would ``more often than not reach a better conclusion than a White male.'' However, I think it bears pointing out to those who claim the comment was made in isolation and taken out of context, that Judge Sotomayor has made a series of similar comments over the years. For example: In short, I accept the proposition that a difference will be made by the presence of women on the bench and that my experiences will affect the facts that I choose to see as a judge. Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt . . . continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate. By ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Nowhere in the history of our judicial system have judges been told to ``go with their gut'' as implied in the judge's statement. Such a standard would erode the legitimacy of the judicial system and would put every litigant in jeopardy of receiving an unfair trial. Rather, judges are expected to decide cases based on the rule of law, not on the basis of their feelings. Otherwise empathy towards one person would mean antipathy against another. A concrete example of my concern that Judge Sotomayor would not be able to set aside her personal preferences and biases is the Ricci v DeStefano case. In this case, Judge Sotomayor and two of her colleagues dismissed in a summary one paragraph unpublished opinion the claims of 17 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter. They alleged reverse discrimination based on New Haven's decision to discard the result of a promotional exam because not enough minorities would be eligible for promotion. Nearly half of the judges on the Second Circuit criticized the ruling as a ``perfunctory disposition.'' However, on June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court announced it was overturning the Second Circuit's ruling in the Ricci case. And while the final outcome appeared to narrowly overturn the Circuit's decision by a vote of 5-4, a deeper analysis is needed. All nine Justices unanimously rejected the lower court's specific holding and legal standard. It also bears mentioning Justice Alito's concurring opinion in the case: The dissent grants that petitioners' situation is ``unfortunate'' and that they ``understandably attract this Court's sympathy.'' But ``sympathy'' is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law--of Title VII's prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today's decision, has been denied them. Many of my colleagues questioned Judge Sotomayor about her decision in Ricci. Judge Sotomayor repeatedly indicated that she relied on precedent, but the Supreme Court disagreed, saying, there were ``few, if any, precedents in the Court of Appeals.'' Because the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and there is no backstop, I cannot support Judge Sotomayor's nomination. She did not convince me, either through her past rulings or during her confirmation hearing, that she would carry out justice in an impartial manner. Impartiality is essential to our justice system. Beyond my concern that Judge Sotomayor will not be able to set aside personal views and prejudices, is her overall record before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has substantively reviewed 10 of Judge Sotomayor's decisions. Of those cases, eight have been reversed or vacated, one was upheld on a different legal standard and sharply criticized for using a flawed legal theory, and the last one was upheld on a slim 5-4 margin. This is a record that directly questions the nominee's legal reasoning and the ability to sufficiently apply the rule of law. A 10-percent success rate does not exude the confidence and mastery of the law that I feel is necessary of a Supreme Court Justice. The final point of concern that I would like to highlight is Judge Sotomayor's view of the Second Amendment. In Maloney v. Cuomo, Judge Sotomayor joined a panel opinion that decided in one paragraph that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states. Also, in United States v. Sanchez-Villar, she joined a summary panel opinion that, among other things, used a one-sentence footnote to conclude that ``the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.'' Judge Sotomayor believes that states have the authority to infringe on Second Amendment rights. This is fundamentally at odds with the Constitution. Although Judge Sotomayor attempted to disavow and reconcile her past comments during the hearing, her record speaks for itself. Even the Washington Post, which endorsed Judge Sotomayor, found her testimony ``less than candid'' and ``uncomfortably close to disingenuous.'' Ultimately, I came to the decision that too many uncertainties exist regarding whether Judge Sotomayor will uphold the rule of law equally for all people and adhere to the Constitution. While I respect and appreciate her impressive life story and accomplishments, I cannot support her nomination to the highest Court.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to the unique health care challenges faced by the 62 million Americans who live in rural America. If you took a snapshot of rural America, you would see a population that is older, poorer, and has less access to health care than other places in the country. Because many rural residents are elderly, they need more health care services. However, rural residents have greater transportation difficulties reaching health care providers and often have to travel long distances to reach a doctor or hospital. Very few public transportation systems are available, and so many folks wait until they are very sick before turning to the health care system. This makes the already challenging job of managing chronic conditions even more difficult. Rural areas report higher rates of chronic conditions, including heart disease and cancer. One contributing factor to these chronic conditions is the higher obesity and smoking rates of children and adults who reside in rural areas. Compounding the problem, rural residents also tend to be poorer and make on average $7,000 less per year than their urban counterparts. Nearly 24 percent of children who live in rural America are in poverty. Poverty affects the types of foods being offered at the dinner table as the price of fruits and vegetables can often bust a tight food budget. It can also force people to put off medical care. According to a recent study, rural residents are more likely than their urban counterparts to report having deferred care because of cost. It can be a vicious cycle. While health coverage is vitally important to these rural residents, the greatest crisis is access to care. We could give health insurance to everyone, but if your county has no doctor or hospital, the best insurance will make little difference. This is a simple concept, but an important one. In rural America, the cornerstone of the health care delivery system is the critical access hospital. These hospitals, made up of 25 beds or less, provide the most basic access to medical services and serve as a rural safety net for emergency services. Of the 90 hospitals in Nebraska, 65 of them are critical access hospitals. Clearly their importance in rural America cannot be overstated. However, it is difficult for many rural hospitals to keep their doors open. One reason is that there is less patient volume than in many urban settings. In addition, Medicare payments to rural hospitals and physicians are dramatically less than those to their urban counterparts for equivalent services. This correlates closely with the fact that more than 470 rural hospitals have closed in the past 25 years. Rural areas also struggle to keep other aspects of their health care infrastructure in place. For example, 20 percent of counties in Nebraska do not have a local pharmacist who can fill prescription medications for their residents. I could go on and on with a similar story on home health services, long term care, durable medical equipment, and other critical health care services. However, one of the biggest challenges facing rural America is difficulty recruiting and retaining health care professionals. Medical professionals sometimes do not want to set up practice where doctors are few and major metropolitan hospitals require hours of travel. Currently, 50 million Americans who live in rural America face challenges in accessing health care. There are too few providers to meet their basic primary care needs. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, while a quarter of the population lives in rural areas, only ten percent of physicians practice there. There are over 2,000 health professional shortage areas in rural and frontier areas of all States and U.S. territories compared to 910 in urban areas. Ninety out of 93 Nebraska counties are facing health care profession shortages in one or more areas of practice. Unless something is done to address this problem, the situation will almost surely become a crisis. This scenario is quickly appearing on the horizon as rural America has a higher percentage of physician generalists who are nearing retirement than urban areas. Fewer doctors and lack of health care access could decimate rural residents and their rural communities. Young families will not move to a place where they cannot access health care for their children, and older residents will be forced to move to places where they can find care. This potential rural reality has major implications for the rest of the country and will affect the health and well being of everyone. For example, rural America produces the food and the fiber that our country needs to survive. Young farmers and their families will not come back to live and work in an area where they cannot receive health services should an accident or sickness occur. The farming profession is already a gamble and not having access to health care is something most people aren't willing to risk. If people are forced to leave rural America due to lack of health care, then a whole new set of challenges will arise that we are not currently prepared to address. Any health care solutions or reforms must account for current rural health care system realities and future challenges. I have long said that the best solutions originate outside the beltway, the same holds true with health care. Blanket policies crafted from within the DC beltway do not always meet the needs of Nebraskans. In fact, they often add additional burdens onto the current system and compromise the ability to access quality health care. That is why I encourage my colleagues crafting health care reform legislation to incorporate the solutions offered in the Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act. I am a sponsor of this legislation and look forward to a number of its provisions being enacted. Additionally, I hope any health care reform will offer critical access hospitals flexibility in determining their bed count to account for seasonal and emergency situations which might affect admissions rates. Any comprehensive legislation must address the unique payment issues facing rural hospitals like reimbursing them for lab services provided in nursing homes and rural health clinics, and increasing Medicare payment rates for rural health clinics. Finally, legislation should extend the rural community hospital demonstration project and provide incentives to encourage providers to practice in physician scarcity areas. The health care delivery system in rural America is already stressed. We cannot afford a big mistake with health care reform, because if we get it wrong, the fragile rural health care delivery system may never recover. Mark my words; if we enact policies that drive providers and facilities out of business, no one is waiting in the wings to take their place. Therefore, I urge caution and thorough debate of all health care reform proposals as unintended consequences must be minimized.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my amendment to increase funding for USDA's tuberculosis program by $2 million. In early June, TB was discovered in a beef cattle herd in Rock County, NE. As many of my colleagues know, this is a disease that can spread very quickly among cattle. It is also transmissible to humans. This is not just a Nebraska issue or a Midwest issue. As I speak, California, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico are battling the effects of TB. Other States, including Colorado, South Dakota, and Texas have had TB scares as well. Although, thankfully, up to this point they have not seen any change in their TB status. This problem could impact the beef industry nationwide, and it is critical that we do everything we can to eliminate it immediately when it is discovered. In Nebraska, thankfully, only two animals in the entire herd tested positive for the disease, and they were put down to prevent further spread. Since that time, Nebraska State officials have worked side by side with USDA officials to test the infected herd, as well as several neighboring herds, which is the process. Based on the latest reports from home, 8,900 cattle have been tested to date, and all have, thankfully, tested negative for TB. That is great news. I commend the efforts of the veterinarians and the government officials on the ground in Nebraska. I thank those officials for their efforts. They have been aggressively dealing with this issue every day since the initial discovery. I wish to thank the USDA specifically for providing significant expertise and personnel to assist with the ongoing testing. The Department's assistance has been sound and it has been steady. We greatly appreciate it, but the work is not yet done. The testing is not quite complete. Hopefully, the results will keep coming back negative, but, regardless, we are going to remain vigilant. We must make sure the USDA has the resources on hand to respond in the event that further cases of TB are discovered. That could be anywhere in this country. TB can have a crippling impact on a State's beef industry. It can negatively impact the ability of State producers to shift cattle State to State, and, of course, potentially it can have an impact on export markets. Ranchers cannot afford to have their State lose its TB-free status. Anytime a disease such as TB is discovered in a herd, it is absolutely critical the infected herd be depopulated immediately. I say that from my experience as a former Secretary of Agriculture. Depopulation is oftentimes essential. Doing so significantly decreases the likelihood of the spread of the disease. It also reassures the rest of the beef industry that we will always respond decisively to combat the spread of the animal disease. We need to send a strong signal to our producers that they will have our support if they come forward when they discover the herd has a problem. If depopulation indemnity funds are not available, a producer literally may hesitate to disclose the information. Then the problem festers and it festers and it spreads. We simply cannot take that kind of risk. Consumer confidence and producer trust are far too important. It is imperative that we make sure USDA has the funding and the tools on hand to deal with existing TB problems and to take swift action in the event of future TB discoveries. That is why I am offering this amendment--to make sure the resources are there. At this point I ask unanimous consent that a letter supporting my amendment from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may call up amendment No. 2241.

Mr. JOHANNS. Finally, I urge my colleagues to support this very important amendment to make the resources available to the USDA, and I urge my colleagues, if they have any questions, to get in touch with us. This is a very important issue. With that, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the importance of the senior caregiving community. In the U.S., over 36 million people are 65 years of age or older, which is approximately 12 percent of the population. That number is expected to double by the year 2025 as the baby-boomers fully enter their golden years. Thus, while senior caregivers are playing an important role now, this profession will be even more important in the future. The people who provide care to millions of seniors across this country provide a great service not only to these individuals, but also to their families and our communities, as a whole. It is estimated 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. These services enable seniors to stay in their own homes and stay engaged in their communities--which can make all the difference in the world when it comes to their happiness. I have talked to seniors who are helped by caregivers and they use words like guardian angel and lifesaver to describe them. 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. The senior caregiving profession is part of the solution to the challenges our country faces as we continue to age. Currently, 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 caregiving profession will continue to grow in prominence and demand as the senior population rises. That is why I am happy to introduce a resolution with my colleague, Senator Casey, to honor senior caregivers and the private home care industry. We salute those who provide such quality care for so many Americans. It also encourages individuals to reach out and provide these services to their family, friends, and neighbors. We need to examine federal policy alternatives to make caregiving for seniors more accessible and more affordable for families. If we can keep seniors in their homes, instead of nursing facilities, 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. This resolution encourages the Secretary of Health and Human Services to continue working to educate aging Americans about the assistance options available for seniors. Senior caregivers are doing a great service to this country and I commend them for it. It is an indisputable fact that we will all grow old, thus this issue will sooner or later affect every American. Therefore, it is important to have access to quality, affordable caregiving services in every community. Caregiving is a profession that will continue to grow in prominence and need as the senior population rises. Again, I thank the senior caregivers for their service to Americans throughout this nation, and I am pleased to offer this resolution on their behalf.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a leader in American forestry. In February of 2007, Abigail Kimbell became the 16th Chief of the U.S. Forest Service. She was the first female in this role, a job she held until July 5, 2009. During those 2\1/2\ years, she served with distinction and accomplished much for the forests, grasslands, and people of the United States. Gail is credited with renewing the emphasis behind the Forest Service's mission of ``Caring for the Land and Serving People'' and reconnecting programs and functions to that mission. She improved firefighter safety and fire suppression cost containment. Gail showed great vision and leadership, pressing the agency to continually strive to meet a standard of excellence in its operations, both internally and in service to the public. Gail emphasized the importance of quality water to the environment and our communities. She directed the agency's investment in the education of children and youth, particularly those in underrepresented communities, to enhance their connection to the natural world. Gail's numerous and significant contributions span more than three decades of public service. As a Forest Supervisor, she focused on community collaboration to build understanding and support for an economically and environmentally viable long-term timber sale program in Alaska. She also made bold land management decisions to ensure forests remained healthy by reducing hazardous fuels. As associate deputy chief for the national forest system, Gail was central to the development of the Healthy Forests Initiative, including the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. She also worked to improve interagency cooperation. As regional forester in the northern region, she oversaw the development and implementation of community wildfire protection plans in Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota. She also played a leading role in the development of plans to delist the grizzly bear in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Gail pioneered the implementation of improved forest planning with unprecedented public collaboration and ownership. On July 31, 2009, Gail Kimbell will be retiring from the Forest Service with 35-plus years of service to that agency and our country. Her dedication to the Forest Service mission ``to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations'' will be forever appreciated by the people of the United States.