Mike Johanns

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an Agricultural Committee hearing that is scheduled later on this week. It is an important topic. The hearing is titled ``The Role of Agriculture and Forestry in Global Warming Legislation.'' I look forward to participating. This is the committee's first effort this year to tackle the ongoing climate change debate. It is very important. Much of the discussion in both Houses of Congress has centered on potential new legislation and regulations relative to climate change. Any kind of new climate-related law would have sweeping consequences that touch every corner of American life. Thus, I have made it clear that any climate change legislation should require a robust, open, and extensive debate on the Senate floor. Numerous studies have now been released about cap and trade and affect on American life. Those studies also include agriculture. During last year's debate over cap and trade, the Fertilizer Institute released a study stating that the legislation would result in a $40 to $80 increase in the cost to produce an acre of corn. That means higher input costs for livestock producers as well. That same study indicated the cost of producing soybeans would increase from $10 to $20 an acre. Wheat would jump $16 to $32 an acre. According to one recent analysis, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill would also have a significant, if not severe, impact on agriculture. If the bill is enacted, farm income is estimated to decrease as much as $8 billion in the year 2012. By 2024, farmers stand to lose $25 billion. An eye-popping $50 billion would be lost by farmers by 2035. Gasoline and diesel costs are expected to increase by 58 percent. Electric rates would soar maybe as high as 90 percent. Agriculture is an energy intensive industry. Those kinds of increased costs are certainly going to impact this business. These are not isolated studies. The American Farm Bureau Federation, the largest agricultural organization in the country, has also studied these costs. The Farm Bureau reported that if Waxman-Markey were to become law, input costs for agriculture would rise by $5 billion, compared to a continuation of current law. Other studies have indicated in various ways that the likely impact of cap and trade would include increased electricity and heating costs, construction costs, fertilizer prices, higher gas, and higher diesel prices. Different studies come up with varied numbers, but they all paint the same picture--agriculture loses. None of this should surprise anyone because the bill is specifically designed to increase the cost of energy. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office: Reducing emissions to the level required would be accomplished mainly by stemming demand for carbon-based energy by increasing its price. We also know farmers in America's heartland get hit worse by these high energy costs, and we know that USDA agrees. Last week, USDA officials indicated in testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that as a result of cap-and-trade legislation: The agriculture sector will face higher energy and input costs. At the very least, all of this tells us that this is an enormously complicated issue with significant economic ramifications, perhaps as complex as any we will deal with this Congress, not to mention very costly. Given the gloomy predictions about cap-and-trade proposals, it seems clear to me that we need to take an approach that is extensive, methodical, and well thought out. We need more specific and clear analysis to make sure we know--and, most importantly, the American people know--exactly what passage of this bill will mean. As I mentioned, USDA knows that cap and trade will increase energy prices. Here is the kicker: At the same time the Department also has indicated: USDA believes the opportunities for climate legislation will likely outweigh the costs. Let me say that again: USDA says energy prices will increase, but they think the opportunities for climate change legislation will outweigh the costs. This kind of claim must be based on hard data or it is reckless to make the claim. Such a sweeping conclusion should not be drawn unless the impact is studied and analyzed. If USDA has conducted analysis of increases in farm input costs and weighed them against the measured opportunities, then I applaud their efforts. But if that is the case, it is mystifying that the Department has not shared the analysis, despite having testified before the Senate twice in the 2 weeks preceding this week. Having served as the Secretary of Agriculture, I know that the USDA has an outstanding team of economists with expertise to do this kind of analysis. That is why last week I sent a letter to the current Ag Secretary, Tom Vilsack, who will testify at the Ag Committee hearing this week. The letter requested USDA to provide the following: A State- by-State analysis of the cost of cap and trade on ag industries; a crop-specific analysis; an analysis of how the legislation would impact livestock producers; finally, USDA's assessment of how many acres will be taken out of production as a result of the bill and what impact this will have on food availability, the cost of food, fiber, feed, biofuels, and other ag products. Without detailed analysis, USDA's assertions about costs and benefits will simply ring hollow. Why wouldn't the USDA provide this information? Isn't this why the department exists? Agriculture is going to be directly impacted by the legislation. Yet we have no analysis from the people's department. If the people who feed the world are going to get hammered by this legislation, we should know about it. We should debate it, and we should vote on it on this floor. I hope the third time is the charm for the USDA, and they bring more than rhetoric to Wednesday's hearing. Cap and trade will not affect States, crops or regions equally. It will have a different impact on a corn farmer in Nebraska than on a chicken farmer in Arkansas. Similarly, it will impact a dairy farmer in New York differently than the orange grower in California. We need a State-by-State and commodity-by-commodity analysis. One-size-fits-all will not work. A national average would not paint a true picture. When one is camping, they can't put one foot in the cooler and one foot in the campfire and, on average, it is about right. The same goes for loose assessments that are riddled with averages. We have a responsibility to seek a full understanding of this legislation's impact on our Nation's farmers and related ag industries. The information I requested is critical to help the Senate and America's producers develop a clearer picture of cost increases for farmers, ranchers, and consumers. We need the impact analysis to tell us which parts of the country will be hit the hardest and which industries within agriculture will incur the greatest losses as a result of this legislation. I have asked for this analysis prior to the hearing. I believe it is necessary, and I hope we will have it before the hearing. I am puzzled by the passage of nearly a full week since my request and no analysis has been provided. I trust the administration has nothing to hide. I will remain engaged in the debate. I look forward to Wednesday's hearing. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Recognition Of The Minority Leader

Mr. JOHANNS

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

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

Mr. JOHANNS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, the Medicare and Medicaid Programs are the largest single purchaser of health care in the world. These programs account for over 20 percent of all U.S. Federal Government spending. More than 1 in 5 taxpayer dollars we actually spend will go to the Medicare or Medicaid Program. By the time my children become senior citizens, these two programs are projected to consume every dollar of tax revenue raised per year. Recently, the Medicare trustees reported that the Medicare Program is literally projected to be bankrupt by 2017, just 8 short years away. That is 2 years earlier than projected last year. Our ability to offer financial predictions provides little consolation to senior citizens who depend on the Medicare Program to receive their medical care. For the millions of baby boomers, my generation, expecting the Medicare Program to be there for them and their future health care needs, these projections basically say that on the current course, we are out of luck. Unfortunately, the Medicaid Program outlook is not much better, a program I am very familiar with as a prior Governor. Medicaid is the largest source of general revenue spending on health care for both the Federal Government and State governments. In fact, Medicaid represents 40 percent of Federal Government general revenue spending on health care and 41 percent of such spending by the States. That is why, as economic conditions have continued to worsen, State Medicaid budgets are increasingly in crisis. States are struggling to pay Medicaid obligations and still balance their budgets. It is a tough job--I know from personal experience--one that is not for the faint of heart. The President is proposing, in my judgment, to exacerbate the problem by creating another government-run entitlement program. Of course, in order to pay for this new program, he has identified cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Let's be clear: We have one soon-to-be-bankrupt program that consumes a huge chunk of health care spending today, and the rushed reform would take money from it to pay for a new health care program. Seriously, this is a vicious cycle and something we would only see in Washington. The American people deserve a better effort. I suggest that in the real world, when budgets get tight, leaders have to make very tough decisions. Programs are scrutinized with a fine-toothed comb to find out where savings can be found. If savings are identified, that money is used to shore up the programming shortfalls and to try to keep the current program viable. Medicare recipients are hoping we do that because the clock is ticking on their program. We don't see new programs created as existing programs fall deeper and deeper into the red. People and programs, they have to work together, rolling up their sleeves, prioritizing, scrutinizing every dollar in every program in order to fulfill current obligations, in order to meet the promise to those who are receiving the benefits today. I have laid down a resolution. That is why this resolution I am submitting today is necessary, to restore some semblance of sanity to the process. Simply put, this resolution says that if we find savings within the Medicare Program, we should put those savings back into the Medicare Program to keep the promise to our senior citizens that we will protect their program instead of creating yet another government entitlement program with the savings we have pulled from their program. It also says that if we find savings with the Medicaid Program, we should increase the Federal medical assistance percentage to help out States, to reduce the burden on State budgets; again, to fulfill the promise to those Medicaid recipients that we are serious about keeping their program going. These are very practical, commonsense views the vast majority of Americans would agree with. Fix the programs in existence, Medicaid and Medicare, keep the promise to those receiving the benefits today, instead of taking the money from those programs to start yet another gigantic program. If we identify true savings within these current entitlement programs, I propose we fulfill that promise to the millions of Americans who are relying upon these important Federal programs. After all, it is not practical to rob Peter to pay Paul, especially when both Peter and Paul are going broke.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a leader in American agriculture. Jack Eberspacher, president and chief executive officer of the Agricultural Retailers Association, passed away on July 5, 2009, in Reston, VA. He had been courageously fighting cancer since April. Jack was a dynamic leader and was admired throughout the industry as a strong and effective advocate for agriculture. Jack was born in Seward, NE, in 1954. He earned an animal science degree at the University of Nebraska and completed coursework toward a master's degree in business administration at Texas Tech University. After several years working in various agribusiness positions throughout the United States, Jack was named the chief executive officer of the National Grain Sorghum Producers Association in 1989. His colleagues there remember him as a creative man who loved pushing the envelope and emphasizing new ideas. He focused the Association's efforts on the needs of the producers and bringing stakeholders together. In 1998, Jack accepted a new challenge as the chief executive officer of the National Association of Wheat Growers in Washington, DC. With his leadership, the association achieved a positive financial turnaround. In 2001, Jack was appointed president and chief executive officer of the Agricultural Retailers Association, where he served until his death. He worked tirelessly to build the association into a strong voice for agricultural retailers and distributors in the Nation's Capital. Jack was an active member of the Bennett Roundtable of the Farm Foundation of Chicago, Illinois, and recipient of the Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity Brother of the Century Award. He also served as a member of the Bush-Cheney Agricultural Transition Team. Jack is survived by his wife Jinger and their two children Sam and Maggie; his parents Max and Lois Eberspacher; his sister and brother, as well as nieces, nephews, relatives and friends. I am personally thankful for his contributions and service to American agriculture. His legacy will be remembered, and he will truly be missed by many. My prayers are with his family during this difficult time.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, late last week, media reports heralded the decrease in the pricetag of the HELP Committee's health care proposal. But I would suggest that before we uncork the champagne, before we celebrate a great accomplishment, let's study more closely the untold story. I believe we will find accounting gymnastics that have been employed. While the headlines may have touted a HELP Committee bill that scored at $611 billion over 10 years, the real pricetag, when fully implemented, actually totals about $2 trillion. That is a big darn difference. An almost $1.5 trillion discrepancy simply cannot be swept under the rug. It is too big to be a rounding error--even in the Federal Government--and too much of a budget buster to be ignored. So where is the difference? First, the Congressional Budget Office assumes it will take the Federal bureaucrats over 4 years to get the government-run health care and other subsidies up and running. So while the $611 billion score claims to be a 10-year number, essentially it only covers 6 years of the costs. If you look at the CBO score for the first 10 years after the program is fully implemented, the actual spending is closer to $1.5 trillion. In addition, while the press releases were claiming credit for increased insurance coverage, they were actually leaving out what it actually cost to make that happen. That euphoric claim that 97 percent of Americans would be covered under the HELP proposal is not even in the HELP Committee proposal. Only in Washington can you assume something to be, take credit for the accomplishment, and then not pay the bill. The 97-percent statistic is based on an assumption. The assumption is that Medicaid will be expanded up to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level. This expansion is estimated to bring 20 million new people into a government-run health care plan. However, CBO estimates that it will cost around $500 billion over 10 years. Nowhere is that cost yet considered. And this is only the Federal share of the program. It does not take into account the State taxes that will need to be raised in order for each State to pay its share of this bill. At one point, I was a Governor. In my own State of Nebraska, this expansion will cost the State taxpayers $73 million a year when they have to assume the costs of the program. That is a lot of money to come up with in these tough economic times. The American people, I believe, deserve more than budgetary tricks. Let's be honest about what we are trying to do here, and let's be very candid with people about the real costs, the fully implemented costs of the program. Let's also be very upfront about the realities of what a government-run program can or cannot accomplish in actually bringing down health care costs. Some claim that a government-run plan will serve as competition for private insurance and, thus, will bring down the cost of those insurance premiums. However, the CBO score makes it clear that if a government-run plan competes on a truly level playing field, it is not going to lower health care costs. The only way a government-run program can offer reduced insurance premiums is if they pay providers and hospitals at rates equivalent to current government programs. But this wouldn't cover costs. Instead, it would create cost shifting under private insurance, which is already happening today. CBO cautioned that reducing payment rates would only increase the access problems we have with current government programs. Currently, we know 40 percent of doctors don't take Medicaid patients. It is not that they don't want to; it is because the rates are so low they don't cover their costs. This directly contradicts President Obama's message: If you like your doctors, you will be able to keep them. The reality is, on this government program--Medicaid--which is due to insure more, that is not the case. The CBO score actually confirms that many employees would lose their employer-based health care should this bill become law. Let me put up a chart, if I might. In fact, the HELP Committee's bill seems to directly encourage employers to dump their employees into a government-run plan. In the committee draft, businesses that employ 25 or more employees would be required to pay an annual penalty, which is shown here, of $750 for a full-time employee, if they choose not to provide private health insurance for the employees. When you do the math, though, this isn't a penalty at all compared to the cost of private insurance. Looking again at the chart, in 2008, the average employer's cost for an individual in a group plan was $3,983. So putting their employees on the public plan option is actually a savings. It is a savings, as the chart shows, of $3,233 a year for each employee for that employer. Paying the so-called penalty to get out from underneath the private insurance costs looks like a pretty smart business decision. In fact, I don't think it is a coincidence that a very large retailer recently came out in support of the employer mandate. When I heard this news, my initial reaction was, What is the catch? Well, I think we found the catch. With over 1.4 million employees, this company reports that 51.8 percent of their employees have coverage through an employee health care plan. If all of these employees end up on the public plan, it would save this company $2.4 billion a year. The employees, members of our middle class, lose their insurance plan and the promise is not kept. It is no surprise the company does very well: $2.4 billion goes to the bottom line. Also no surprise, this company is supporting an employer mandate. Ultimately, people will not have a choice to keep their employer-based coverage and will not receive the same level of care when their employer dumps them onto the government plan to make their bottom line look better. This will directly impact the ability of the middle class to choose the doctor they want. It will inject government bureaucrats into their medical decisions because they have no choice. It is an employer's choice to move you to the government plan. To promise otherwise is misleading. False promises will not help us achieve true solutions. Congress has been tasked with solving this problem, and we must work together to resolve the problem of reining in soaring costs. Adding another $2 trillion entitlement program onto a budget that is already in serious trouble doesn't make sense. The American people have sent us to Washington to identify the problem and fix it, not exacerbate it. Let's not put together bad policy and end up with another financial debacle. This time there is far more than money on the line. Americans treasure their ability to choose their doctors, to receive treatment, to have control of their life. They don't want a Federal bureaucrat in the middle of it. So let's be candid with the American people and put together a good bill that actually addresses the real problems. Let's get it right this time. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 7 minutes.

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I rise, I think, at a very appropriate time, while we are talking about the budget and deficits and numbers, to say that rarely has a crystal ball proved so regrettably accurate. Many warned, as did I, that the stimulus would amount to a mountain of wasted money. It produced record deficits, and thus far it has produced little beyond that. But I am not here to ask the Senate to take my word for this. You can read it in black and white in two reports that were released yesterday: a CBO report and a GAO report. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Federal budget deficit for the first 9 months, as Senator McCain mentioned, was a whopping $1.1 trillion. This is the first time in our Nation's history that the annual deficit has been this high. If that ``Guinness Book'' record-sized debt was not astonishing enough, we would all be floored that this debt is from only the first three-quarters of the year. It is mystifying to me, horrifying to the American taxpayers and their children who eventually will have to pay the bill. It represents a dangerous reality for our future. Only 4 percent of the first stimulus funding has been spent, yet we are shattering national deficit records already. This was easily predicted. Look back a few short months to February when we were debating the stimulus, a bill we were told we had to do right away. On February 4, 2009, I delivered my first speech as a Senator. I made some simple predictions based upon my experience as a city council member, a mayor, and as a Governor. Serving in those rolls, I learned a few things about how money is spent at the local level, especially the hidden costs of money from the Federal Government that seemingly comes with no strings attached. In that speech I warned what would happen with the so-called stimulus legislation. I predicted that State governments would use the funds to replace State dollars and shore up their budget problems. Well, sure enough, the Government Accountability Office, known as the GAO, reported this: States reported using Recovery Act funds to stabilize State budgets and to cope with fiscal distress. The report states that 90 percent of the money distributed has come in the form of increased Federal education and health care grants to State governments. This money has helped many State governments to partially offset what they are facing, which is budget shortfalls. I also warned that the result of replacing State funds with Federal funds would lead to an enormous funding cliff for State budgets when that temporary stimulus money ran out. The GAO report sends up a warning flare, because States have not addressed the situation they will be in when the stimulus funding runs out or how they will come up with the funding to cushion the fall. I wish I had been wrong in February--in fact, I think I said that at the time. I wish I had been wrong when I said that the transportation sector jobs estimated to be created by the major infrastructure projects wouldn't materialize because the funding would instead go to repaving. I urged my colleagues to reconsider because repaving projects would not lead to long-term economic growth or good jobs. So what is the consensus since the stimulus bill went into law? The GAO report states that nearly 50 percent of all transportation projects are for resurfacing and another 18 percent of the funds are being used to widen already existing roads. That adds up to nearly 70 percent on temporary road improvement projects. Even though President Obama said there is nothing he would have done differently, I find that hard to believe considering his earlier remarks that predicted a much different result. In a speech on February 10, soon after becoming President, he said: We can use a crisis and turn it into an opportunity. Because if we use this moment to address some things that we probably should have been doing over the last 10, 15, 20 years, then when we emerge from the crisis, the economy is going to be that much stronger. I doubt he had repaving projects in mind. As evidenced by the GAO report, the stimulus bill is not laying down the essential groundwork for sustained economic growth, long-term initiatives, or jobs. In fact, unemployment reached 9.5 percent, the highest rate in 26 years. This means that since the stimulus was signed into law, 2,964 jobs have been lost every hour of every workday. Clearly, the stimulus bill was sold to the American people as a quick fix to solve our economic woes, but it is failing. The Obama administration and his supporters in Congress want to quickly tack on to the $1 trillion stimulus a litany of big spending initiatives: health care reform, cap and tax, an overhaul of the financial system. The recklessness of proposed spending, new government programs, and increased deficits is sobering. What does all this proposed spending add up to? A huge train wreck with stacks of IOUs all the way to China as far as the eye can see. Yet some have the audacity to raise the possibility of a second stimulus. It defies logic. I will conclude by saying that the last thing the Federal Government should do, directly or indirectly, is stifle American businesses and hard-working families just as they are trying their best to crawl out from the economic yoke of debt, taxes, and a stagnant economy. Before we drive the Federal budget off another cliff--and take State budgets down with us--we need to put our foot on the brakes, slow down, and correct our course. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I wish to speak to the Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital Quality Report Card Act of 2009. One of my proudest jobs in the Senate is serving on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Among its other roles, this committee provides oversight of VA health facilities, working with information from the VA, its Inspector General, Veterans Service Organizations, and the general public. We work with a lot of information--it is, after all, our committee's job. But sifting through a pile of reports to find the best hospitals should not be a full time job for those who need health care. This bill will help ensure that it is not. Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this bill, the VA would be mandated to establish a Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative. Under the Initiative, the Secretary would be required to publish reports on the VA's hospitals which assess health care effectiveness, safety, timeliness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, satisfaction of patients and health professionals, and care equity. These factors would be assessed as letter grades, to ensure that the results of these reports are not swabbed over with bureaucratic jargon. In collecting and reporting this data, the Secretary would have to include extensive and detailed patient-centered information such as staffing levels of nurses, rates of infections contracted at VA hospitals, volume of various procedures performed, hospital sanctions and other violations, the availability of emergency rooms, the quality of care in various hospital settings, and additional measures determined appropriate by the VA Secretary. Each report submitted under the Initiative would have to be available in electronic and hard copy formats, in an understandable manner, and allow for a comparison of the individual VA hospital quality with local or regional hospitals. The bill would further mandate that the Secretary institute quality control measures to identify potential data irregularities that would lead to artificial improvements in the hospital's quality measurements. In addition, the Secretary would need to evaluate and periodically report to Congress--and the public--on the effectiveness of this Initiative. I believe that our veterans should easily be able to identify the best hospitals around them. It is unconscionable to make often elderly and disabled veterans wade through pages of statistical data in order to assure themselves that their local VA health facility is providing the best care possible. Often, the factors veterans care about such as the wait times for appointments and medical attention--are not measured reliably or presented to veterans in an accessible or usable fashion. I want to change that. Information on health facilities should not be a privilege; it should be an obligation for the Department of Veterans Affairs. This legislation is a positive step in the right direction. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this commonsense legislation.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Five minutes.

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I anticipate 10 minutes, and I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I spent several days during the recess hosting a series of discussions on health care. I met with doctors and hospitals, underwriters, small business owners, and uninsured Nebraskans. Many of them feel as if they are one illness away from a crisis. The economic slowdown has only heightened this fear as they worry that they may lose their job and the health insurance their family depends upon to stay healthy. Their concerns are real, and Congress should act carefully to address them. We need to create a health care system that protects patient rights, let's them see their doctor, and is affordable. But I am concerned about the discussion that is occurring today. The American people deserve true solutions and should not be led down a path that is fraught with shadowy numbers and unfulfilled promises. Specifically, I have reservations about a government-run public plan. Some have attempted to sugar-coat this new bureaucracy as simply an option. However, the more you learn about it, the more you realize there is nothing optional about it. In my judgment, it is a one-way ticket to a single-payer, government- run health care system, one that will compromise patient access to quality care. It is impossible for private industry to compete with the government. The government can fix the prices and pick the rules that make only one plan feasible--the government plan. When the government acts as both the player and the umpire, it's not a level playing field. That close call at the plate will never go to the runner and the foul ball magically will become a home run. Some will say the government-run option will increase competition and keep the private insurers honest. Left unsaid is that government underpayments on Medicaid and Medicare are creating enormous cost shifting and increase the health care costs for others. Underpayments for Medicare and Medicaid are estimated to shift about $89 billion onto people who have private insurance. Each family pays an additional $1,800 annually to make up for the government's flawed payment system. Hospitals and doctors literally told me they could not keep their businesses open on the Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rate. So the creation of another plan, a government plan, will only rob from Peter to pay Paul. Eventually, there will be no private insurance companies left to bear the burden. Bottom line is that government does not balance the books, and it views itself as not having to. Washington seems happy to keep on printing money and raising taxes. How can private business compete with that? If a government-run public plan was truly going to compete, it would face the same regulations and the same risks that the private industry feels. No bailouts if it becomes insolvent. Does anyone think the bill's proponents would honestly let that happen? The Administration would probably claim it is too big to fail, like AIG, Citibank, General Motors. A system with a competitive government option, I fear, is a fairy tale. A government-run plan will undercut the private market and ultimately drive them out of business. I am not defending the private insurance industry. Far from it. But we need to be honest with the American people. An uneven playing field is not right, and it will not benefit Americans. The effect, I fear, will be longer waiting lines, less innovation, and rationing of care. In Canada, the average wait time for radiation treatment is 7 weeks. I cannot imagine asking Americans diagnosed with cancer to wait that long. There are some in Washington who have their heels dug in on a single-payer plan. It contradicts the President's promise. He has said over and over that people will be able to keep their health care. But Americans beware. One study estimates 119 million people will shift to the government plan. They will not choose that; their employer will choose it for them. We cannot fault employers that are trying to save money. In the committee draft, businesses that employ 25 or more employees would be required to pay an annual penalty of $750 per employee. When you do the math, this is no penalty compared to the cost of private insurance. In 2008, the average employer's cost for an individual health care plan was $3,900. Putting their employees on the public plan option would save them over $3,200 a year for each employee. So you can see why this shift would occur. Ultimately, people will not have a choice. Their employer will make the choice, and they will be forced onto the government plan. To promise otherwise is misleading. Even the President has recognized that shift is going to occur. I conclude my comments today by saying: Don't be fooled. A government plan that does not compete on a level playing field means people will migrate to the government plan, and the choice to keep private insurance will not be a viable option.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Johanns pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 206 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreement which was signed way back in November of 2006. On July 29, President Uribe will be visiting the United States to meet with our President, President Obama. The two have previously met at the Summit of Americas in April, but this will be President Uribe's first time here under the new administration. Today, as one Senator, I rise to express my hope for a continuing bond in our relationship with Colombia's President Uribe. I also rise to express some concerns that I will talk about. I am happy that President Obama recognizes the importance of our closest ally in South America. I am also pleased President Uribe continues to seek a close relation with the United States, for he is truly a courageous and a visionary leader. Coming to power in some of the darkest and most vicious days of a Marxist insurgency everywhere in that country, he has pulled Colombia back from the brink. President Uribe has driven the terrorists from much of their territory in Colombia's cities, boosted the economy, and he has improved Colombia's human rights record. If an American President had achieved this much, some would be clamoring for him or her to seek a third term. The same is true in Colombia, where despite term limits, Uribe is actually being petitioned to run again. His achievements are very impressive. During President Uribe's time in office, the economy grew at an average rate of over 5 percent over the past 5 years. According to the World Bank, Colombia's GDP growth then grew 7.5 percent in 2007, far surpassing the average in Latin America. Ten million Colombians have been lifted out of poverty, unemployment has fallen from double digits--16 percent in 2002--to 9.9 percent in 2007. Crime has been a historic problem in Colombia. Yet, under President Uribe's stewardship, kidnapings have declined 83 percent, murders are down by 40 percent, terrorist attacks are down by 76 percent. Every single one of Colombia's 1,099 municipalities now have a police presence. Finally, at long last, Colombia appears to be winning the war against the terrorists who have made life miserable for far too many years. Last summer, the world was treated to the images of smiling U.S., French, and Colombian hostages when a daring Colombian Army raid freed them from the terrorists. These included three U.S. defense contractors and one hostage who had been held since February of 2002. The U.S. State Department estimates that over 30,000 paramilitaries and terrorists have been disarmed and demobilized--an impressive number. I look to the future in this relationship, but I will be very candid. I am concerned about the present. I speak of the Colombia trade agreement that is languishing in the executive branch. We should, in my judgment, be embarrassed by this inaction. I recognize the populism of opposing trade, but I cannot understand the opposition to the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. It levels the playing field for U.S. workers and farmers and small businesses. Over 90 percent of Colombia's exports to the United States already enter this country duty free. They have for years, under the Andean Trade Preferences Act and other previous agreements. Meanwhile, U.S. exports to Colombia face high tariffs. They can be as high as 35 percent, a tax on our goods going into Colombia. In spite of these restrictions, Colombia is America's 27th largest trading partner. An International Trade Commission study estimated that the United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreement would boost U.S. exports by $1.1 billion. Do my colleagues and others who oppose this deal think the U.S. economy is so robust it does not need another billion-dollar-plus market? Are things that rosy? I suggest not. I come from a farm State where we are especially eager to open new markets. Virtually 100 percent of Colombia's agricultural products enter the United States duty free. Zero percent of U.S. agricultural exports enter Colombia duty free. This FTA wipes out those differences. It levels the playing field. Tariffs would immediately disappear for 80 percent of U.S. exports into Colombia and the rest phase out over time. The potential for dramatic increases in our exports, in my judgment, is very clear. Consider this: Even with the tariff imbalance our agricultural exports to Colombia totaled almost $1.7 billion in 2008. In spite of all of the current tariffs, corn and wheat cereals are one of the major U.S. exports to Colombia. Last year we sold $969 million worth, as well as $2.6 billion in machinery. By anybody's definition these are very big numbers, and on a level playing field--which is what the FTA will do--they will be even bigger, with a potential to create thousands of jobs in an economy that needs every job. These statistics clearly show the FTA we have negotiated with Colombia is not a blind leap into the unknown. Colombia already essentially has free trade with us, an open border. This FTA levels the playing field for America's farmers and ranchers and U.S. businesses. Did you know more than 8,000 small- and medium-size businesses in our country export to Colombia? For them, the elimination of these tariffs would blow open the door of opportunity. Congress should not be in the business of creating hurdles for the United States overseas, nor should the executive branch. Yet here we have a clear pathway to eliminate a huge hurdle with a simple nod of approval. Yet we have failed to act. The economic justification speaks for itself, but it is just one of the several compelling reasons to ratify this agreement immediately. Perhaps as persuasive is the political situation in Latin America. Since his rise to power in Venezuela in 1998, Hugo Chavez has reinvigorated the radical Latin-American left. He has formed a block of anti-American countries in South and Central America composed of Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and, increasingly, Ecuador. During an audacious raid on the Ecuador border, Colombian military units captured evidence detailing the Venezuelan Government's extensive support for the terrorists. Venezuela has used its petroleum money to buy friends and influence people throughout the hemisphere, and too often they have succeeded. Our friend in Colombia has stoutly resisted this siren song. When too many other nations have drifted into cheap anti-U.S. populism, Colombia has stood strong, and has traveled precisely the opposite way. So while President Uribe is here in our Nation and is meeting with our President, I hope the President of the United States will do the right thing and stand firmly in support of completing the FTA that has been negotiated. It is time for the administration to show great leadership on this issue, which is at every level, in my judgment, just good common sense. However, Congress cannot shirk its responsibility for the lack of action on the Colombia FTA. While the administration needs to step to the mound, Congress must step up to the plate and swing for the fences. This agreement was signed and it was sealed and it was delivered two and a half years ago. It is an unbelievable opportunity for our farmers, our ranchers, and our small businesses. It is waiting right here at our doorstep. All it needs is our nod of approval. That is why today I introduce a resolution recognizing the benefits of the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this resolution and to implore the leadership to allow it to come to a vote. Rarely has an initiative with benefits this crystal clear faced such a rocky and uncertain road. The time to level the playing field for farmers and ranchers and small businesses is here. It is upon us.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a lingering issue that could have serious detrimental effects on our nation's ethanol industry. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 increased the renewable fuels standard--commonly known as the RFS--to 36 billion gallons annually of ethanol and other biofuels by 2022. I support the RFS . . . Always have. The RFS simply means more domestic energy production, less imported oil from unfriendly nations, and more jobs in rural America--both on and off the farm. The 2007 law requires EPA to come up with new rules to determine greenhouse gas emissions throughout the lifecycle of renewable fuels. Simply put, EPA must calculate how much greenhouse gas is emitted from the time the seed is produced to the time drivers use the fuel in their cars, with every step in between. These steps include production, transportation, distribution, and blending, just to name a few. Under the 2007 law, renewable fuels must emit anywhere from 20-60 percent fewer greenhouse gases than petroleum. Unfortunately, when calculating lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, EPA has included theoretical indirect land use changes. As the theory goes, increased production of biofuels leads to more grain being used for biofuels and less being exported to foreign markets. Allegedly, this decrease in exports means additional grain production is required in other parts of the world, creating increased cultivation in those areas. Proponents of this way of thinking say forests in other parts of the world are being converted to crops to substitute for the missing U.S. grain. However, that is all it is, an unsubstantiated theory, an argument that just doesn't hold water. Pure bunk. As an example, in 2004, over 10,000 square miles of the Amazon was deforested. In 2008--the peak year for ethanol production to date--that number dropped to under 5,000 square miles. How is that possible? Due to significant technological advances and ever-increasing efficiency, the American farmer continues to meet the demand for food, feed, and biofuel. For instance, in 1980, the average corn yield per acre in this country was 91 bushels. Last year, it was 153.9 bushels--a 70-percent increase in productivity. In fact, this spring, American farmers will use almost exactly the same amount of acres for corn production as they did 30 years ago-- about 85 million acres. Yet the productivity advances mean we will likely harvest roughly 6 billion bushels more corn on the exact same amount of land. The soybean industry can tell a similar story. In 1980, American farmers produced just under 1.8 billion total bushels of soybeans on 69.5 million acres. In 2007--almost 30 years later--they produced almost 2.7 billion bushels on 64.7 million acres. That is a production increase of nearly a billion bushels, on 5 million fewer acres. So the facts seem clear. Even as the production of biofuels increases, deforestation rates have been cut in half just in the last 5 years. Clearly, no reliable or accepted model for measuring indirect land use change exists. Projection models for indirect land use are based on assumptions about how landowners made choices about what to do with their land. And unless the EPA has recently hired mind-readers, they might as well be playing pin the tail on the donkey. Calculating emissions from indirect land use changes is such an inexact science; it is really no science at all. There is literally no way to know if what you come up with is accurate. Our farmers and ethanol producers should not be held responsible for land use decisions made half way around the world, especially when they are based on untested and unreliable assumptions. Just last year, the President's own Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar-- then a sitting U.S. Senator--signed a letter to EPA stating that EPA's calculations pertaining to indirect land use are based on ``incomplete science and inaccurate assumptions.'' For all these reasons, today I sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson requesting a 120-day extension of the deadline for the public comment period on the RFS. EPA needs adequate time to hear from impacted industries and organizations about the potentially devastating effects of these untested, unreliable indirect land use calculations. I hope the EPA will give serious consideration to my request. Additionally, I am cosponsoring S. 943 and S. 1148, both bills that would remove indirect land use assumptions from the renewable fuel standard. Doing so does not in any way impact emissions reductions requirements. The requirements remain intact and the same goals can be reached. These bills will simply remove a very untested, incomplete, assumption-based factor from the equation. And while the environmental benefits of ethanol have been well- documented, the RFS was enacted to increase our energy security and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Right now, over 60 percent of our oil is imported from other countries. Much of it comes from countries that, put very simply, don't like us very much. We have to take steps to become less reliant on these nations for our energy needs and more reliant on ourselves, and the RFS does that. For example, the production and use of 9 billion gallons of ethanol in 2008 displaced the need for over 320 million barrels of oil. This is the equivalent of eliminating oil imports from Venezuela for 10 months. Put another way, it represents the equivalent of 33 days' worth of oil imports. Those are not insignificant numbers. An expanded ethanol industry has yielded another very important result: rural economic development. Using my home state of Nebraska as an example, ethanol has clearly benefitted many rural communities. Almost 10 years ago, as Governor of Nebraska, I supported several initiatives to incentivize what was then a relatively small ethanol industry. Well, today Nebraska is the Nation's second largest ethanol producer. Nebraska currently has 20 operational ethanol plants, with a combined production capacity of over 1.3 billion gallons of ethanol each year. These plants represent more than $1.4 billion in capital investment and provide direct employment for roughly 1,000 Nebraskans. Energy security, economic development, environmental improvement, these issues are all connected. And ethanol and our Nation's farmers have contributed to each in a positive way. As elected officials we should support the biofuels industry, not undermine it. Basing our energy policy on some unsubstantiated theory regarding indirect land use is the wrong approach. With the passage of the RFS, Congress asked farmers and biofuel producers to significantly expand and increase their production levels. Let's not pull the rug out from under them with unwise policies. I am proud to cosponsor S. 943 and S. 1148 and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, as the rhetoric over health care reform starts to heat up--and, of course, it has--I find myself trying to determine exactly what we are trying to accomplish with this debate. Are we attempting to put together what I think is the right approach--a bipartisan solution to a problem that is affecting every American family and business--or are we caught up in pushing something through this body with little deliberation and little regard for the consequences of our hurried action? And the consequences are great. I fear we are leaning toward the latter statement, based upon the time limits and the rush in the committees charged with producing very complex health care legislation. I do not envy them their task. I would argue that it is more important to craft a very good, very solid bill that actually will solve the problem instead of forcing a not-well- thought-out, half-analyzed bill onto the backs of the American people. What we do in this arena will affect every American. I believe our constituents deserve so much more from us, and we should think twice before we proceed down a path that is wrong. The American people deserve to know the truth about what is included in the bills that are being considered. They have a right to know how this will affect the long-term health not only of their families but of the Nation. Of course, in that arena, they need to know the long-term health of this Nation, both physically and financially. We can find many points of agreement on how to reform our health care system. I have heard countless speeches about the need to eliminate waste and fraud and abuse--and it does exist in this system. Many agree we should use technology to eliminate administrative costs and to eliminate errors. There is much talk about the need to enhance transparency within the system, as well as the need to increase health and wellness efforts to lead to a healthier society. I have heard the valid points made about needing to stem the rising cost of health care and bending the health care cost curve. These are easy areas to agree. I think there is a middle ground, and I think we should all be standing upon it when we are viewing health care reform. However, I am disappointed by the recent health care proposal emanating from the HELP Committee--the Affordable Health Choices Act. The legislation does not seem to capture the spirit of the bipartisan effort the President indicated he wanted to have in order to accomplish this important task. Instead, the Affordable Health Choices Act is just another government takeover of the health care system. This is not the health care reform that Americans have asked for, in my opinion. Americans have been promised some things already. They have been promised that everyone will receive health care; that they would get to keep their insurance, if they like it; and the government will be responsible and act responsibly in using taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, the current legislation simply doesn't live up to the promises. In fact, the legislation has a number of proposals that not only don't live up to the promises, they directly contradict those promises. For example, the report by the Congressional Budget Office states that 15 million Americans who currently have employer-sponsored insurance will lose that coverage under this proposal. I can rise today and very safely say this isn't a talking point that came off of somebody's sheet. This is actually an analysis done by a body that we all rely upon--the Congressional Budget Office. These numbers are likely to increase as soon as the figures for the government-run public plan are included. After all, the Lewin Group-- which does research in this area--has issued a forecast that a public plan would probably cause 119 million people who have employer-provided health insurance to shift over to the public plan. So let's take a moment to recap. The administration's promise: Citizens will get to keep their employer-provided health insurance, if they choose. Reality: CBO says 15 million people will be displaced from that coverage. Reality: The Lewin Group, in its estimate, says that could climb to 119 million Americans dumped from their private insurance onto a government system. Furthermore, CBO indicated that about 39 million individuals would receive coverage through the government insurance exchange. That is the concept in this complex legislation. However, after you factor in those who would lose their employer-based coverage and those who would switch from other government programs, we are actually only bringing 16 million currently uninsured people into the fold. In other words, our country would still have an uninsured rate--after spending over $1 trillion--of 13 percent when the bill is fully implemented. The administration promised coverage for all. Reality: CBO estimates 13 percent uninsured Americans. That is millions of Americans still not having access to health care in any meaningful way. Some do claim the analysis doesn't reflect the full proposal. They will make the case that the final report will show that more of the uninsured will, in fact, be covered. However, this proposal is already estimated to cost $1 trillion over 10 years--a huge pricetag. Not surprisingly, this pricetag is expected to increase. Spending this kind of money to only insure 16 million people should be disappointing to everybody--disappointing to every American. Just when our economy is trying to achieve some equilibrium, slamming it with these kinds of costs for these few results I don't believe is even a good-faith effort on our part. I believe everyone wants to solve these complex health care challenges, but I think it is so important to be thoughtful, careful, and to take a moment to step back and take a deep breath. It makes no sense from a policy standpoint to rush these enormously complex decisions with unbelievable results just to finish by the August recess. It doesn't make any sense. We are talking, Mr. President, about people's health care. We are talking about the health and safety of their families. As the adage goes: It is better to invest the time to get it right the first time instead of getting it wrong expeditiously. We need to get back to a middle ground and follow through on the promises that have already been made to provide real health care reform--sustainable health care reform. The American people deserve a thorough, bipartisan debate on health care, not a rushed, ill-advised piecemeal approach to an enormously serious problem. I hope we have that opportunity because this is too important to get wrong. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to offer my thoughts. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS

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

Mr. JOHANNS

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

Mr. JOHANNS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Johanns pertaining to the introduction of S. 1223 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise to present a piece of legislation that I believe the Senate should consider immediately. I believe this legislation is so important that it can't wait. The legislation I introduce today is the Free Enterprise Act of 2009, and its purpose is very straightforward. The Free Enterprise Act of 2009 requires prior congressional approval of any TARP funding that results in the government taking a common or preferred equity interest in any private entity. Since the inception of the TARP program, my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, in a very bipartisan way, have voiced concerns over the management, the oversight, and the purpose of TARP. Yet the program continues morphing and drifting away from its original purpose: to buy toxic assets and keep credit flowing to consumers. That was the purpose of TARP when it was sold to Congress back in October. TARP was never intended--never intended--to be a revolving, $700 billion blank check for the administration to use however it sees fit. Unfortunately, that is exactly what it has become. First, the checks were used to bail out the banks, then to the struggling insurance giant AIG, then to the floundering housing market, and despite a December vote by Congress that rejected--specifically rejected--a bailout of the auto industry, TARP funds are now being used to bankroll the auto industry. I am quite certain most of my colleagues would have looked at me in disbelief if I would have said a few months ago that TARP funds would essentially be used to buy a private auto company--General Motors--and then rush it through bankruptcy. Yet last Monday the Obama administration announced it would provide $30 billion more in TARP funds to buy General Motors, owning a 60-percent interest in the company. The bottom line is our government is now running or is very deeply involved in major industrial sectors, including housing, banking, insurance, and now automobiles. There is no longer a clear distinction between companies owned by investors and entities owned and backed by the government. I am deeply troubled by the change in how business in America is conducted, and I am worried we are causing irreparable changes and damage to our private market system. But I am equally troubled and worried that all these ownership and management decisions are being made--literally buying a car company--without congressional input or approval. Many may completely disagree with me and think the government should get in the auto business, that they should own a 60-percent stake in General Motors or that the government should be a 34-percent owner of Citigroup. But the one thing all my colleagues should be able to agree on is the fact that Congress needs checks and balances. Right now, disagree or agree with me, none of us in Congress have had a voice--neither a voice in support nor a voice in opposition. We woke up, just like the citizens of America, and found out that we own 60 percent of General Motors--a decision made by President Obama literally with no oversight by Congress. What has happened is the legislative branch has effectively given President Obama a free pass to do as he wishes with $700 billion. But with the passage of this legislation, we can regain some type of oversight over the disbursement of TARP funds. Let's not continue to criticize the use and management of TARP funds and yet do nothing about it. Support for this legislation is an important step in the right direction. It would ensure that Congress provides checks and balances. That is what we were elected to deliver. That is why we are here. At the very minimum, let's at least have a vote before the government takes ownership of private companies. My bill only asks for a simple majority governed by the normal rules of the Senate. But it makes a very significant statement that Congress has not fallen asleep at the switch. I hope my colleagues will not choose to remain silently in their seats. We must fulfill our duties to provide oversight over the executive branch. That is what our Constitution demands. I urge my colleagues, whether you support or oppose funds for private industry, to reclaim the role Congress has in this process. Doing anything less would simply be a dereliction of our duty. When I introduced this legislation as an amendment to S. 982, it quickly got 30 cosponsors. I am very happy to report that many of these people have joined me as cosponsors, and we are nearing that number again. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation and join me as a cosponsor. We can work together to ensure that free enterprise is not relegated to the back burner in this country, and, most important, we can work together, whether you agree or disagree, to make sure Congress is not relegated to the back burner. The Free Enterprise Act is a positive step in that direction.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise to present a piece of legislation that I believe the Senate should consider immediately. I believe this legislation is so important that it can't wait. The legislation I introduce today is the Free Enterprise Act of 2009, and its purpose is very straightforward. The Free Enterprise Act of 2009 requires prior congressional approval of any TARP funding that results in the government taking a common or preferred equity interest in any private entity. Since the inception of the TARP program, my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, in a very bipartisan way, have voiced concerns over the management, the oversight, and the purpose of TARP. Yet the program continues morphing and drifting away from its original purpose: to buy toxic assets and keep credit flowing to consumers. That was the purpose of TARP when it was sold to Congress back in October. TARP was never intended--never intended--to be a revolving, $700 billion blank check for the administration to use however it sees fit. Unfortunately, that is exactly what it has become. First, the checks were used to bail out the banks, then to the struggling insurance giant AIG, then to the floundering housing market, and despite a December vote by Congress that rejected--specifically rejected--a bailout of the auto industry, TARP funds are now being used to bankroll the auto industry. I am quite certain most of my colleagues would have looked at me in disbelief if I would have said a few months ago that TARP funds would essentially be used to buy a private auto company--General Motors--and then rush it through bankruptcy. Yet last Monday the Obama administration announced it would provide $30 billion more in TARP funds to buy General Motors, owning a 60-percent interest in the company. The bottom line is our government is now running or is very deeply involved in major industrial sectors, including housing, banking, insurance, and now automobiles. There is no longer a clear distinction between companies owned by investors and entities owned and backed by the government. I am deeply troubled by the change in how business in America is conducted, and I am worried we are causing irreparable changes and damage to our private market system. But I am equally troubled and worried that all these ownership and management decisions are being made--literally buying a car company--without congressional input or approval. Many may completely disagree with me and think the government should get in the auto business, that they should own a 60-percent stake in General Motors or that the government should be a 34-percent owner of Citigroup. But the one thing all my colleagues should be able to agree on is the fact that Congress needs checks and balances. Right now, disagree or agree with me, none of us in Congress have had a voice--neither a voice in support nor a voice in opposition. We woke up, just like the citizens of America, and found out that we own 60 percent of General Motors--a decision made by President Obama literally with no oversight by Congress. What has happened is the legislative branch has effectively given President Obama a free pass to do as he wishes with $700 billion. But with the passage of this legislation, we can regain some type of oversight over the disbursement of TARP funds. Let's not continue to criticize the use and management of TARP funds and yet do nothing about it. Support for this legislation is an important step in the right direction. It would ensure that Congress provides checks and balances. That is what we were elected to deliver. That is why we are here. At the very minimum, let's at least have a vote before the government takes ownership of private companies. My bill only asks for a simple majority governed by the normal rules of the Senate. But it makes a very significant statement that Congress has not fallen asleep at the switch. I hope my colleagues will not choose to remain silently in their seats. We must fulfill our duties to provide oversight over the executive branch. That is what our Constitution demands. I urge my colleagues, whether you support or oppose funds for private industry, to reclaim the role Congress has in this process. Doing anything less would simply be a dereliction of our duty. When I introduced this legislation as an amendment to S. 982, it quickly got 30 cosponsors. I am very happy to report that many of these people have joined me as cosponsors, and we are nearing that number again. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation and join me as a cosponsor. We can work together to ensure that free enterprise is not relegated to the back burner in this country, and, most important, we can work together, whether you agree or disagree, to make sure Congress is not relegated to the back burner. The Free Enterprise Act is a positive step in that direction.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about the President's announcement a few hours ago relative to pay-go. Today, the President said: Paying for what you spend is basic common sense. Perhaps that's why, here in Washington, it has been so elusive. Well, I could not agree more. But I must ask: Where was that common sense when the President proposed to add $10 trillion to the national debt in the fiscal year 2010 budget submission? Where was this basic common sense when he signed a bill earlier this year that adds $1 trillion in debt this year alone? Where was this newfound fiscal discipline when he proposed a massive universal health care proposal that is now turning out to be a government-run proposal with just a downpayment of $650 billion? The President's announcement undoubtedly was meant to quell rising fears about the amount of spending and borrowing his administration has undertaken. It was likely intended to calm the fears of those who buy our debt who are wondering if it is just paper. But do the President's words today in any way address the mountain of debt and increased taxes he proposed and supported just a few weeks ago with the budget submission? The answer to that is no. Today's announcement does absolutely nothing to decrease the rising, crushing debt we have accumulated. In fact, this President has significantly added to our debt, causing it to rise to an unprecedented level, an unsustainable level. Let me repeat that. The President's announcement does absolutely nothing to address our record spending and borrowing. This is akin to maxing out on the personal credit card and then promising not to use it anymore but offering no plan to pay off the balance. The President rightly pointed out today: The debate of the day drowns out those who speak of what we may face tomorrow. Maybe it is an appropriate time to thoughtfully consider what we face tomorrow because of the unpaid credit card balance. It is important to dissect the rhetoric and speak to Americans who have been promised something I would suggest the President cannot deliver. Remember that those in the so-called middle class--and the definition of that has changed--have been told they will be shielded from tax increases. Well, I would suggest the evidence is obvious. The rug is about to be pulled out from underneath them by the President's explosive growth in spending and borrowing. If Congress continues to follow the President's unlimited spending spree and tries to balance the budget at the same time, the middle class will get hammered with tax increases. This, I would suggest, is the elephant in the room that no one in the Obama administration wants to discuss for fear of the consequences. But the American people deserve an open discussion about the real- life consequences of big government and the runaway freight train of spending and borrowing that comes with bigger government. Supporters of the current budget claim that only individuals earning more than $200,000 will see their taxes go up; therefore, there will be no tax increase on the middle class. Yet such a tax on higher income earners still results in an average annual deficit hovering around $1 trillion per year for the next 10 years, described by many to be unsustainable. Our national revenue simply cannot keep up with the bloated spending in the budget, and that is resulting in a shortfall. Let me illustrate this in an example. This is equivalent to a Lincoln, NE, teacher earning $33,000 per year but spending $58,000 per year--year after year. It cannot last long. So is the Obama administration going to continue this spending increase with only the revenue from the so-called rich? How can they continue running annual deficits with no end in sight? They cannot. Inevitably, the spending spree and exploding deficits will land squarely on the middle class in the form of higher taxes, unless we do something. The reality is, the Obama administration cannot continue the unprecedented level of spending while claiming to hold the middle class harmless. If you do not believe me, listen to leading economists. Martin Sullivan, a former economic aide to President Reagan, actually, who backed President Obama last fall, said: You just simply can't tax the rich enough to make this all up. He went on to say: Just for getting the budget to a sustainable level, there needs to be a broad-based tax increase. Leonard Burman, director of the liberal Tax Policy Center, said: [T]here's no way we're going to be able to pay for government 10, 20 years from now without coming up with a new revenue source. Finally, economist Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist, wrote: I, at least, find it hard to see how the federal government can meet its long-term obligations without some tax increases on the middle class. All of these experts echo the point I am making: You cannot tax the rich enough to cover all the spending. Inevitably, what all of this is leading to is that the middle class will fall victim to massive taxation. I will put this into more tangible terms by examining how much the tax rate would need to rise to make up for only this year's projected budget deficit--just this year's projected budget deficit. The deficit for this year alone is an eye-popping $1.8 trillion. This does not even take into consideration the more than $12 trillion public debt we currently owe. Here is what would have to happen to the tax rate. The rates for the top four brackets would skyrocket from the current rates of 35 percent, 33 percent, 28 percent, and 25 percent to an alarming 90 percent across the board. Imagine, people would have to work until Thanksgiving just to pay their taxes. Some may say: Well, this is great. Tax the rich because they can afford to pay more in taxes. Yet those making up the third and fourth brackets from the top can hardly be characterized as rich. Let's look at who actually falls in those income brackets. Currently, for tax year 2008, people who fall under the 25-percent bracket earn about $32,000 to $78,000. Does anyone want to come to the Senate floor and make the case that somebody making $32,000 a year in Nebraska is rich? The average salary in Nebraska is $35,000. I do not know anyone who would suggest that only wealthy people fall within the bracket. The average Nebraskan would have something to say about that in terms of whether they are wealthy. Let's look at the next bracket, those taxed at 28 percent. The income levels for this bracket are roughly $78,000 and $164,000 for singles. For married couples, it is $131,000 to $200,000. What does that mean? This means that a landscape architect in Nebraska making $75,000 a year, hypothetically, married to an emergency room nurse making $59,000 a year would fall into a 90-percent tax rate. Again, I suggest if you asked this couple, I am quite confident they would not describe themselves as wealthy. Taxing the middle class to the tune of 90 percent would bring this economy to its knees. There is some notion in America that we, the people, should be the masters of our own economic success. If you tax someone at a 95-percent rate, you take away the economic incentive to be innovative, to strive for greater success. Eventually you end up with slim or no productivity or competitiveness. Yet this administration keeps spending as though it is monopoly money. Just this week, more directions: Get that money out there. Get that spending going. Their spending binge has an unsustainable course. Complying with pay-go alone won't even come close to fixing it. Maybe Congress would benefit from being coached by the same credit card counselors who help Americans who are drowning in debt. I will bet those counselors would have some stern words. My point is simple: This is not the right direction for our country. We must start to make spending decisions today that paint a realistic and candid picture of the impact on the middle class, and if it is the purpose of our Nation to hold them harmless, then we have to cut spending and we have to smart size our government. Working families across our Nation and in my State deserve an honest debate. It is time for Washington to take responsibility. The people at home I believe are demanding it. I often say Nebraskans have great wisdom to convey. I couldn't agree more with a gentleman from North Platte, NE, who wrote me a letter recently and he said this: It's important to remember that while government consumes wealth, transfers wealth and sets the ground rules for the generation of wealth, it is the private individuals that create it. As a final note, the President today rightly acknowledged: The reckless fiscal policies of the past have left us in a very deep hole. I would add to that: And the present. Digging our way out will take time, and patience, and tough choices. Again, I could not agree more, other than I would add to that: The present. However, instituting pay-go does nothing to cut the deficit or the debt, it simply attempts to hold the line, which the President's budget fails to do. His proposal is actually a more liberal approach than what is already in House rules. Right-sizing government and cutting spending is far from revolutionary. So while the President is saying when you find yourself in a massive hole, stop digging, the more important question might be: How are we going to start filling up this gaping hole? Our country needs leadership, not the empty rhetoric I would suggest we heard today. The President's speech today sought to subdue the fears of many regarding our country's exploding deficits. I am sure it was targeted to those who buy that debt, who are expressing concerns about what they are purchasing. Yet people should not be fooled into thinking that pay-go is the holy grail for solving all of our spending and borrowing woes. I believe that while pay-go is a useful tool, when you look at the hard facts, you realize that President Obama's speech today, though, is simply too little and it is too late. The horse is already out of the barn, and the President is talking to us about closing the barn door. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.