Mike Johanns

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, today, on the 125th Anniversary of United Way of America, I wish to pay tribute to Nebraska's many United Way organizations. United Way is active in the communities of Beatrice, Columbus, Cozad, Crete, Fremont, Grand Island, Hastings, Kearney, Lexington, Lincoln, Nebraska City, Norfolk, North Platte, Omaha, Scottsbluff, Wayne, York, and others. The Nebraskans affiliated with these organizations work tirelessly every day to improve the lives of those around them. For the past 125 years, United Way has mobilized resources from local businesses and individuals to identify and meet the needs of the communities they serve. Thanks to the leadership from local United Way organizations, communities in Nebraska have been better able to address significant social issues. The programs they support help those experiencing hunger, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, neglect, and many more challenges. In Nebraska, the United Way provides leadership and helping hands throughout our State. I have had the privilege of working with United Way and the agencies they support as a county commissioner, city councilman, mayor, Governor, and now as a Member of the Senate. I have seen first hand the successes achieved by Nebraska's United Way offices, which have improved the lives of countless citizens across the State. I couldn't be more proud of their work. It is an honor to mark this special day by acknowledging United Way offices across our State and thanking the many volunteers who contribute time, talent, and financial resources to improve Nebraska communities. I wish all of the United Way offices in Nebraska and across the Nation another 125 years of success in their mission to serve others.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, given the EPA's recent track record with agriculture--if not downright contempt for it--farmers and ranchers simply don't trust the EPA. They could have done this program right and reached out to the congressional delegations in Nebraska and Iowa and said: Here is what we are doing. Here is the plan. They did not. I found out about this accidentally. I have requested information--in fact, our entire delegation has--and the administrator has been nonresponsive. That is why the amendment is here. It is an amendment based on a lack of trust for the EPA. This maintains the status quo. This will change nothing. It will rubberstamp what they are doing. I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and support the next amendment, which I will call up in due time.

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

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2372 and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, low-altitude surveillance flights over farmers' and ranchers' private property has caused bipartisan concern, and it is happening--EPA is flying these flights. Senator Nelson and I and the entire Nebraska delegation wrote to Administrator Jackson saying, ``What is going on? What are you doing?'' Their response was kicked down to the Regional Director. It was incomplete. It was totally unacceptable. This is not about drones, this is about flights over feed lots, trying to determine if there is a violation and then pursuing that action. What we are asking for is for the public to be advised of what they are doing. Until that happens, this amendment simply says: Stop. You can't do this anymore until you let us know how you are using this information and for what purpose.

Mr. JOHANNS. I ask for support of the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. I rise to take 10 seconds to support the amendment of my colleague from Nebraska. It keeps in place a program that has been in place since 1990. It is a good amendment.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant and true leader in Nebraska politics, Gov. Norbert Tiemann, whose recent death saddened all who knew him. Gov. Norbert Tiemann, or ``Nobby,'' as he was affectionately known, served as Governor of Nebraska from 1967 to 1971. It is a privilege to take this opportunity to remember the life of Governor Tiemann and his many contributions to our State and Nation. Prior to being elected Governor, Tiemann served three terms as mayor of Wausa in northeast Nebraska. He would later serve as Federal Highway Administrator for the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Nixon and Ford administrations. Ever service-oriented, Tiemann's public service extended well beyond elected office. He bravely fought in World War II and was later stationed in Korea. Tiemann had an incredible passion for governing and played an active role in the lawmaking process. His leadership as Governor left a lasting impact on our great State. Scholars consider him to be among the most influential Nebraska Governors for transforming the governorship in our State from its traditional caretaker role to one that led public policy discussions. As we look back on Tiemann's legacy, we will remember a dedicated public servant who cared deeply about Nebraska. I could not be more grateful for his lifetime of service and, on behalf of all Nebraskans, offer my sincerest condolences to his family.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Let me just close by saying that I hope my colleagues will support us on this resolution. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, Senate amendment No. 2187 offered by Senator Kerry has now been voice voted onto the farm bill. It is unfortunate that this significant change of USDA policy occurred without a recorded vote. While it may sound innocuous to add commercial fishermen to the list of those eligible for USDA emergency farm loans, it is not without its negative implications. Support for commercial fishermen has typically been the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. Thus, USDA has little to no experience serving commercial fishermen. Additionally, funding for farm emergency loans is limited. Amendment No. 2187 would further dilute this limited pool of funding and divert it from its core mission--assisting our farmers and ranchers. While this amendment may have been voice voted, I would have voted nay on this amendment had there been a recorded vote. I hope this is an issue that we can revisit and rectify in conference committee. Amendment No. 2268

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to support S.J. Res. 37. The rule addresses emissions from powerplants. However, in my judgment, this rule goes too far, too fast, and tries to achieve too much in too little time, at too high a cost to our families. Oftentimes, we hear concerns in my office about rules and regulations. Too often, those rules and regulations come from the EPA. And when EPA rules are the topic, sometimes I have to ask: Which EPA rule are you talking about? Because, let's face it, the list of EPA job-killing regulations is downright dizzying. However, this resolution addresses only one, which hammers coal-fired electricity generation, especially large coal-fired plants. In Nebraska's case, the rule would require the addition of expensive new equipment to control particulate matter and certain exhaust gases. Well, how expensive would these additions be? One of our States's largest utilities has estimated they would need to spend about $900 million to $1.3 billion over the next 3 years to get into compliance. So one might ask, where is that money going to come from? Well, in our State, every single penny of these capital expenditures comes directly from users--essentially every Nebraskan. You see, in our State, the State of Nebraska, we are 100 percent public power. That means no stockholders, no shareholder equity, no profits to draw down. How quickly would they need to come up with that money? The compliance period is just 3 years. These are major projects, so 3 years is not an adequate timeline. Now, 3 years may sound like plenty of time to some, but the actual process that needs to occur, all in a specific sequence, makes a 3-year timeline especially challenging. Preliminary engineering comes first, then financing, then opening the projects for bidding, and bidding, and then determining whether compliance with bidding has occurred before you could even start the project. For public power, there are rules and procedures that control each one of these steps. In other words, there is no shortcut. Normally, our utilities try to get these projects done in the periods known as the shoulder months. In Nebraska, these are the months of early spring and early fall--before the summer heat hits the Midwest and before the winds of winter knock at our door and take temperatures down. If the compliance schedule precludes the powerplant from using these shoulder months, then the project costs go up because of the need to buy power from outside of the system. So what does that mean? It means we are faced with compliance that is nearly impossible. And the compliance dates keep changing. The cross-State air pollution rule-- another rule the EPA has finalized just in the last several months--was put on hold by a Federal court after many States affected by the rule challenged the EPA. And we may hear any day now as to whether the court will tell EPA to go back to the drawing board and rewrite the rule. But the main point is that the stream of rules coming out of EPA is huge and compliance is nearly impossible. In Fremont, NE, a Nebraska city manager described it this way: Smaller utilities in rural areas . . . will have difficulty in getting vendors and contractors to supply and install the equipment in this timeframe. Being Public Utilities we have to follow a public letting process and cannot just negotiate a design build contract with a contractor as an investor owned utility can. So what happens to Fremont's 26,000 residents? Well, they will face rate increases of between 20 and 25 percent to cover the compliance costs of this rule, when combined with the requirements of two other rules. Increasing electricity bills by one-fourth is huge. It is a huge impact on Fremont families. The city of Grand Island, NE, estimates that the Utility MACT rule will cost $35 million and require 3 to 5 years of planning and financing and construction. For Hastings, NE, the same sobering outlook--big expense, rushed timeframe, and a worried community trying to figure out how they pay for it. For Hastings alone, the costs of compliance with this rule and the cross-State rule are estimated to be $95 million over 5 years. Now, Hastings has 25,000 residents. You do not need a degree in economics to know this is an enormous burden for the small businesses, small manufacturers, and households. They will carry the load. So the vote for this resolution is a vote to tell EPA their approach is not achievable. It cannot work. It is a vote that means there is substantial opposition to the rule and the country does not support EPA. It is also important to note what this vote is not. No. 1 and most significantly, this is not a vote against clean air. Everybody in my State wants clean air. Everybody wants to comply. They just want some clear, achievable rules on a timeline that is reasonable. The Agency needs to go back to the drawing board. No. 2, this resolution does not strip EPA of its power. If the resolution passes, EPA would not be barred from trying another rule----

Mr. JOHANNS

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

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the farm bill that is now before the Senate. I want to say at the outset that this is a reform-minded bill that saves money and continues the evolution of farm policy in our Nation. I commend the chair and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee for working to craft a farm bill that helps equip producers with improved risk management tools while being mindful of our very challenging budget situation. This bipartisan bill will reduce the deficit by $23.6 billion because of changes to every title and the elimination of nearly 100 Federal programs overall. It shifts farm policy further away from dependence on income support and, instead, focuses on risk management. But to truly appreciate where we are in farm policy today, it is important to spend a minute examining how we got here. In the 1930s, depression and disaster ravaged our country's farm sector. At the time a quarter of this country's population lived and worked on farms and ranches, and most of what they produced was consumed relatively close to where it was grown. When prices collapsed and dust storms swept the Plains, many were forced off their land to look for work in the cities. But oftentimes no work was to be found. In response to this situation, Congress passed the first farm bill. It was called the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. The act placed the Federal Government in the driver's seat in making farm production decisions. A structure to eliminate crop and livestock surpluses was established--the thought being, if that was done, it would drive up prices. Literally, crops were plowed under and livestock was slaughtered to reduce supply and then, hopefully, to increase farm prices, according to the thinking at the time. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 made federally funded price supports mandatory for several crops. That would include corn, cotton, and wheat. Then another law was passed in 1949. It mandated extensive government intervention to maintain parity with prices prior to World War I. I am not going to start an argument today about whether all of this was the right farm policy during the 1930s and 1940s. I will leave that for another time. But I can say, with no hesitation whatsoever, it is absolutely the wrong approach for the farm economy today and virtually no one disagrees with that. Over the past several decades, farm bills have improved from those early laws, and U.S. farm policy has slowly but surely become a more market-oriented policy. For a long time the main goal was to support prices for a list of crops. We set high prices in law which distorted markets and discouraged cultivation of crops that did not benefit from price supports. In 1996, Congress began to shift away from the distorting farm policies of the past, and direct payments were introduced to temporarily support farmers as they transitioned away from an agricultural economy that was very reliant upon government intervention. Removing the government from price and supply controls created new risks to farmers, and it created uncertainty from Mother Nature. Congress then responded with ad hoc disaster spending to help farmers and ranchers address losses due to weather and other disasters. In fact, since 1996, USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that $43 billion has been spent on these ad hoc and emergency programs. To help manage these risks in a more fiscally responsible way, a crop insurance program has emerged. This highly effective public-private partnership helps farmers customize protection for their individual operations. Over time, crop insurance has become the risk management tool for farmers. These are policies sold by private companies for over 100 different crops, and roughly 85 percent of acreage for major crops is now covered by crop insurance. Last year, in spite of the drought in much of the southern plains and flooding in States such as Nebraska and many other States, farmers and ranchers did not call for emergency relief. In fact, I have heard clearly from farmers in Nebraska that crop insurance is working well. Today's farmers are certainly some of the most sophisticated and talented businesspeople in our Nation. The fruits of their labor produce an abundance of healthy low-cost food for Americans and, for that matter, people around the world. In fact, trade currently accounts for more than 25 percent of all U.S. farm receipts, and 1 out of every 3 crop acres--1 out of 3--is now exported. In 2011 agricultural exports reached $136 billion. Our efficient export system, including handling, processing, and distribution of our food and agricultural products, creates millions of U.S. jobs. Given the projected global population growth of an additional 2.5 billion people by 2050, U.S. agriculture is positioned to experience significant growth in just a few years. This farm bill ensures that USDA is focused on maintaining current export markets and gaining access to new emerging markets for U.S. farm and food products. This is the first farm bill in recent history that does not pay farmers a specific payment just because they are farmers. You see, farmers have come to realize that risk management is best handled with crop insurance. In fact, in many listening sessions I have had around the State, virtually no one asked for the continuation of direct payments. The bill actually saves $15 billion from commodity crop support by eliminating four programs, including direct payments; countercyclical payments; the Average Crop Revenue Election Program, called ACRE; and the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program, called SURE. It does not raise loan rates, the price levels that have traditionally triggered the making of payments. It focuses the farm program on revenue, not price--something I proposed as the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture when I served in the Cabinet. I remind my colleagues that our job in writing a farm bill is not to protect the interests of specific commodity groups. Instead, the farm bill should be about preserving the health of our agricultural economy. This farm bill continues a history of steps in that direction. It seeks to minimize distortions and allows farmers to respond to market incentives--not determined by artificial prices set in a Federal statute. I am also glad to see a step forward on payment limits and changes to ensure that those who receive government payments are actively engaged in farming. I am especially pleased with the efforts to streamline and simplify the conservation programs. That is an issue I have heard a lot about. This bill actually consolidates 23 conservation programs into 13. In fact, I proposed similar changes as Agriculture Secretary during the last farm bill process. The improvements reduce costs as well as make the programs more farmer friendly. This bill also provides for the basic research at USDA, universities, and elsewhere that is needed to meet the demand for our farmers to produce more food, and on less land, and it does so in a way that includes new avenues to ensure that important work continues in these times of very tight Federal budgets. Finally, I am pleased this bill builds on efforts to encourage beginning farmers and ranchers, veterans, and others looking for careers in agriculture. It is important to me that we keep this farm bill as simple and streamlined as possible. I think we can agree that a bill that eliminates nearly 100 Federal programs does just that. Given our Nation's daunting budget situation, it is appropriate that this bill saves $23.6 billion, taking yet another step in the right direction to reforming farm policy for the 21st century. I hope we can keep this bill moving to help ensure certainty for farmers, ranchers, and others in rural communities where livelihoods are impacted by these policies. But make no mistake, good farm policy does not end with a good farm bill. Our farmers and ranchers also deserve a more constructive regulatory environment and a fairer tax system. So while I support the bill, I hope we can get some amendments pending to make a good bill a better bill. This is so important that I led a letter with 43 other Senators asking for an open amendment process. I look forward to the debate and to passing a very reform-minded farm bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleagues: Senators Kyl, Coburn, Isakson, and Heller for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues to talk about something I think is an issue that without a solution will affect every single aspect of life in our country. I am speaking about our debt crisis, the impending fiscal cliff, and the lack of a budget to address those issues. As I said, I am very pleased to be joined by my colleagues to talk about this issue. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the Senate has lacked the will and the leadership to fulfill what I consider its most basic legislative function: writing and adopting a budget resolution. That has gone on for more than 3 years. While I understand we are rapidly approaching the time where Presidential politics will consume the entire agenda, the U.S. national debt is also rapidly approaching a significant milestone: $16 trillion worth of debt. We should look no further than Greece or Spain to see what this level of debt would do to an economy if it goes unchecked. There are so many frightening statistics, but here is one: America's per capita national debt already significantly outpaces that of Greece or Spain. So as we watch them spiral further into crisis, we should be jolted into action by the very suggestion that our debt is equally as alarming. Yet we are unable to pass a basic budget resolution to get our spending in check. That constitutes a lack of leadership. As I said, I have many colleagues here today who can talk about a better approach. I would like to start today with Senator Johnny Isakson. Senator Isakson has spent his career working on budget issues. I say to Senator Isakson, what is the impact of no budget resolution for 3 years? Is there a better way? Is there a better way to approach the budgeting process than what we are dealing with now?

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Isakson. Senator Isakson referenced my time as Governor of Nebraska. But I speak on behalf of all Governors. The Governor has to deliver a budget. In Nebraska, we used a 2-year budget, and that is what makes me proud to cosponsor the Senator's idea. It is the right approach. It simply says we are going to do our very best to get a budget passed and do the oversight necessary to make sure that budget is working. So I compliment the Senator on his idea. It is definitely a better way forward. Let me, if I might, now turn to Senator Kyl. I say to Senator Kyl, when I was Governor I always had the first shot at delivering a budget. I would deliver it. I would do the State of the State Address. It was not that much different from the way it is done in Washington, with the President's February budget proposal. The State of the Union Address coincides with that. With my budget--and I think most Governors would say this--even when there was real arm wrestling with the legislative process, I always believed I would get about 90 to 95 percent of my budget proposals across the finish line. It was a serious proposal. There were no gimmicks. It was a balanced budget. It did not borrow money to balance the budget. I say to the Senator, how do you regard the President's budget submission these last years, and why isn't it getting more support in a bipartisan sort of way?

Mr. JOHANNS. Very clearly this body is saying, the Senate and the House of Representatives, when they vote on the President's budget, they are saying very clearly: The President's budget spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much. It does not solve any problems. I think actually that is the very clear unanimous message at this point from these bodies. This is not a serious budget proposal.

Mr. JOHANNS. Senator Kyl makes an excellent point. If I could call on my colleague, Senator Coburn, who, as much as any Member of the Senate, has been the watchdog when it comes to spending and programs that duplicate each other, he has been the person who oftentimes has stood on the Senate floor alone and pointed out to everybody how much waste there is in the Federal Government. Senator Coburn has been a great leader. He was on the fiscal commission, a member of the original Gang of 6. I would like to hear his views on the budgetary mess we find ourselves in now.

Mr. JOHANNS. I thank the Senator. We look at those charts and reach the conclusion, inescapably, if we do not start doing oversight and start figuring this out, we are not going to solve this problem. My colleague's reputation as a watchdog of the Federal Government is well earned. Let me now turn to my colleague, Senator Heller. Senator Heller brings great experience. He might be the newest Member of the Senate--I think he is--but he has great experience on the House side. He has seen how the budget process works there. He now has some experience on the Senate side. The Senator sees the lack of a budget process. I would like him to offer some thoughts on what is broken and what we might do to fix this.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to commemorate the 150 year anniversary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I am pleased that my colleagues in the Senate have agreed the occasion is worthy of a resolution honoring this milestone in our nation's history. On May 15, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed legislation to establish the USDA. It gave the agency general authority to acquire and spread useful information on agricultural subjects and to assist in the development and use of new and valuable seeds and plants. For the past 150 years, USDA has lent a helping hand to our farmers and ranchers as they provide the food, feed, fiber, and fuel to Americans, as well as a growing customer base around the world. In the 1850s, there was 1 farmer for every 2 people in the United States. Thanks to ongoing improvements in technology and management practices, today's farmers and ranchers are able to produce even more with efficient use of resources. Currently, the average farmer in the United States feeds more than 150 people. The history of Nebraska has been closely intertwined with this story. In fact, thousands of homesteaders settled in the Nebraska territory after President Lincoln signed another piece of legislation--the Homestead Act--on May 20, 1862. This influx of population led to Nebraska becoming the Nation's 37th State. Since that time, USDA has served as a resource to the many farmers and ranchers who continue to make agriculture the leading industry in Nebraska's economy--just as the department has done for producers nationwide. As the 28th Secretary of Agriculture, I was proud to work with men and women who are still committed to USDA's original mission of spreading information and developing new technologies to increase agricultural production. Today's Department of Agriculture conducts valuable research through the land-grant university system and institutions like the University of Nebraska. USDA also helps to minimize the risks of weather and commodity price volatility for producers. And, the department helps to protect the health of our plants and animals. But, USDA's mission goes beyond helping producers. For example, those who enjoy a good steak, as well as other meat and poultry products in the U.S., have come to trust USDA's food safety inspection process. Of growing importance is USDA's role in promoting exports of agriculture products. It is fitting that this anniversary falls in May--which is also world trade month. I think we can all agree that the benefits of trade are great especially to the agriculture sector. Nebraska is a big agricultural State. And, in Nebraska alone, more than 30,000 jobs and more than $7.6 billion dollars in revenue were directly tied to exports last year. And, these numbers will only grow as we continue to expand access to customers around the world. In fact, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement goes into effect today. It offers great opportunity to both the manufacturing and agriculture sectors. The Colombia Agreement eliminates barriers for many Nebraska agricultural products, including beef, corn, soybeans, pork, and wheat. For some time now, goods from Colombia have been entering the U.S. tariff-free, while American producers still paid tariffs on exports to Colombia as high as 40 percent. It is good news for our agriculture producers and manufacturers that trade agreements are finally being implemented. The South Korea Agreement has already gone into effect, and I hope Panama Agreement won't be far behind. These types of free trade agreements are sorely needed so we can level the playing field for our exporters. We cannot ignore the fact that the fastest-growing opportunities for American businesses, farms, and ranches are outside our borders. They are overseas in rapidly developing countries. I am confident that Nebraska farmers, businesses and workers, and those across the country, can compete with anyone in the world. And, in doing so, we can create new jobs here at home. USDA has played a key role in making sure our farmers and ranchers have the tools to take advantage of these export opportunities. Additionally, the department recognizes that American agriculture is intertwined with the health of our rural communities. USDA works to ensure small-town-America is not overlooked by a Federal Government that is often focused on big urban areas. Over the past 150 years, President Lincoln's vision of ``the People's Department'' has expanded beyond America's farms and ranches and rural communities. His vision is alive and well in the health of our schoolchildren, in our ability to supply energy from homegrown sources, and in our leadership role in helping feed some of the hungriest and neediest people around the world. A key part of USDA's mission--one that consumes the largest portion of USDA's budget--is addressing hunger and meeting the nutritional needs of Americans. Whether through school lunches or assistance for hungry families, USDA plays an important role in supporting those in need. USDA's mission is one of the most diverse of any department and in every area there are hard-working staff striving to meet the department's goals. On this day, I am happy to recognize the men and women of the ``People's Department.'' Their professionalism, dedication, and work ethic provide a shining example of why President Lincoln called the Department of Agriculture the ``People's Department.'' Together, we celebrate the growth and success of American agriculture and the health and well-being of the people of the United States. We honor the farmers, ranchers, and others whose ingenuity, adaptability, and skill have created the safest and most abundant food supply in the history of mankind.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Maureen McLaughlin, a detailee to the Senate Finance Committee, be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of the consideration of H.R. 2072.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the issue that is currently under debate; that is, student loan interest rates. For many students across this great country, the month of May marks the end of the school year and, for some, it means graduating after years of hard work and moving on to another chapter in their life. Americans have always been people who celebrate hard work and the doors that hard work open for all of us. Our country was founded on the promise that people could come here to find the opportunity to realize their dreams. So one of the most devastating consequences of the recent economy is that college students are beginning this new chapter in their lives when opportunities are harder and harder to come by. Sadly, today's college graduates are more likely to end up unemployed or underemployed and struggling with student loan debt at the same time. They are more likely to end up with those circumstances than they are to land their dream job. Unfortunately, college costs have been increasing faster than the cost of living. Sixty-five percent of graduates who got a bachelor's degree in 2010 graduated with debt. So as our economy continues to lag, stopping interest rates on subsidized Stafford student loans from doubling could provide much needed relief. That is why I am a cosponsor of legislation introduced by my colleague Lamar Alexander which extends the current 3.4-percent interest rate for an additional year. It needs to be done. It cannot be denied that access to education is imperative to ensuring a prosperous future for Nebraska's young people and for all Americans. It should be our goal to foster an economic atmosphere where jobs will flourish, our economy thrives, and opportunities abound for young people and, for that matter, for all Americans. That is why I am so disappointed that today we will vote on a bill that takes such a different approach to paying for the student loan interest rate extension. The bill we will vote on taxes small businesses and raids funds that would otherwise go to shore up the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Providing relief for students, protecting seniors' benefits, and fueling our Nation's job engine should not be mutually exclusive goals. We should not be pitting one sector of our population against another. Yet that is what we will do later on today. This bill sacrifices one of those goals I just mentioned and puts another in jeopardy to achieve a third. I believe that is counterproductive. Why? In part because the future of our young people is so dependent on the availability of jobs in America. This bill would raise taxes on job creators at a terrible time. The U.S. economy only grew by 1.7 percent in the last year, and our unemployment rate has been over 8 percent now for 39 consecutive months. Taxing job creators has a chilling effect on hiring. It isn't straightforward to promise students the American dream while making it harder for them to get a job--often the first step toward realizing their dreams. The bill is also enormously unfair to seniors. By diverting tax revenues that would otherwise go to Social Security and Medicare, it ignores the warning flags we just received yet again about these programs. A recent trustees' report verifies that both these programs are on unsustainable paths. Medicare is projected to be insolvent by 2024 and Social Security by 2033--two dates that are well within sight. But instead of helping to strengthen these programs for the future, this bill spends the money elsewhere. The legislation ignores reality and, sadly, that has been all too familiar. The health care law also siphoned funding from Medicare to the tune of $\1/2\ trillion. This money was used to pay for new entitlements in the law, not to extend the life of Medicare. The law's supporters have sometimes claimed it somehow did both--that magically we could count the same dollar twice--but anyone who looked at that disagreed with it, and basic math tells us we can't save and spend the same dollar two times. That was just one of many budget gimmicks used to mask the true cost of the health care bill. Student loans help shoulder the massive cost of the health care law as well. That law, interestingly enough, nationalized the student loan industry, generating $60 billion over the decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But instead of using that money to address the doubling of student loan interest rates that was on the horizon, Congress and the President spent a portion of that money to help pay for the health care law--simply amazing. It is just one more example of a government that claims to know best when their only remedy is to rob from Peter to pay Paul. Sadly, the misguided government solution we will vote on today will be counterproductive for our job creators, for our economy, and for our Nation's job seekers, our soon-to-be graduates. But don't take my word for it. There is a long list of organizations representing millions of employers and hard-working employees sounding an alarm over the tax increase being proposed in the bill we will vote on today. They are the people who build our homes, fix our air- conditioners, run the corner convenience store, own restaurants, print the flyers we distribute and the church bulletins we receive on Sunday. They all say the pay-for in this bill is bad policy. They don't buy the notion that it is a simple tax clarification. They identify it in plain English as a permanent payroll tax increase. They go on to say in a letter to Senate leaders that a payroll tax increase should not be diverted from Medicare and Social Security to a temporary program. That letter, dated May 3, 2012, to Senators Reid and McConnell and signed by dozens of organizations is in my hand and was printed in yesterday's Record. Senator Alexander has proposed a good option that doesn't slap the job creators with a tax increase and doesn't divert funds that would otherwise go to Medicare and Social Security, and I support his proposal. I would also be open to supporting other pay-fors other than the irresponsible one we will face today. It is time to look for practical solutions that can actually pass the Senate and help the American people. Americans are getting sick and tired of election-year voting where we face legislation that we all know is designed to fail with this singular focus of generating good campaign talking points. While extending the student loan interest rate is important, a prosperous future depends on more than just that low interest rate. Young Americans would have greater prospects for the future in an economy that generated jobs and its growing income. The budgets would be less drained if the price of gas and health insurance didn't continue to escalate, and they would have more stability down the road if their future wasn't threatened by strained entitlement programs and a Federal debt that is now larger than the entire Nation's economy. Lately, instead of solving these problems, legislation simply looks for yet another scapegoat, another political gotcha, a bill that is designed to fail to get a 30-second spot. Here in the Senate we should not be in the scapegoat- or gotcha-finding business. We should be in the solution-finding business. That is why I am proud to cosponsor Senator Alexander's legislation that does the right thing for our country's students. This bill provides relief for students during a difficult economic time, and it uses money from a fund created from the health care law to pay for the extension. Identical language has already passed in the House, and it is here for the Senate to consider. The President has already signed legislation into law using this very health care fund as an offset. The President even included cuts to this fund in his own deficit-reduction proposal. But now, when it is politically expedient to oppose those cuts, he has conveniently changed his mind. Well, these flip-flops don't go unnoticed by the American people. I hope we can consider Senator Alexander's legislation soon and the President will reconsider his threat to veto it. There has been a lot of finger pointing on this issue, but in reality everybody agrees interest rates on the Stafford loan should not double when the economy is struggling. The only disagreement is over how to pay for the relief. It is unfortunate that an area with so little disagreement has yet again morphed into a political football. Sadly, with this being a Presidential election year, I fear there will be more of this political gamesmanship. But I stand ready to work with anyone interested in solving the problem. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, today I pay tribute to a dedicated public servant and true legal professional, James Michael Kelly. For nearly 40 years, he has served with distinction in his many roles at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This spring, J. Michael will be retiring from USDA's Office of General Counsel. It is a privilege to take this opportunity to recognize his many contributions and thank him for his service. Since beginning his career at USDA in 1973, J. Michael has served as the department's Ethics Counselor, Acting General Counsel, Deputy General Counsel, and Associate General Counsel. In these roles, he has distinguished himself as a legal professional of the highest integrity. I had the honor of working closely with J. Michael during my service as Secretary of Agriculture. In fact, throughout his career he has worked with a total of 13 Secretaries of Agriculture. J. Michael has guided many at USDA in upholding all legal and ethical standards. His character, commitment, and professionalism are to be commended. Though J. Michael's nearly 40-year history with USDA is impressive, it does not reveal the full extent of his service to our country. In addition to his years at USDA, he served for two years in the U.S. Army and for six years at the U.S. Small Business Administration. I thank J. Michael for his combined 47 years of military and civilian service. I can personally speak to J. Michael's dedication to USDA, which will long be remembered and appreciated. I congratulate him on his retirement and thank him again for his service to our country. I also wish to express my gratitude to J. Michael's wife, Mary Jo (Josie), and their family for supporting his service. May God bless J. Michael and Josie as they begin a new chapter in their lives.

Mr. JOHANNS

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