Mike Johanns

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleagues for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to once again speak about a topic I have spoken to many times over the last 2 years; that is, the health care law. Today I would like to focus on a number of aspects of the health care law, but to start I would point out that this law actually enacted the largest expansion of Medicaid since its inception in 1965. The law dramatically increases government spending, it ties the hands of States, it is going to bankrupt State budgets, and it traps nearly 26 million more Americans in a broken system. Last week's Medicaid Actuary report indicates that 25.9 million more Americans will be dumped on Medicaid under the new law. The week before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office pointed out that Federal spending on Medicaid will increase by $168 billion. That is just compared to last year's projection. That means this expansion alone is projected to cost the Federal taxpayers $795 billion through 2021. That is at a time when not only our Federal budget is struggling, but in addition to that our State budgets are in trouble. Added up, the Federal Government will spend $4.6 trillion on Medicaid over the next 10 years, a staggering number--$4.6 trillion. Medicaid spending is projected to increase 35 percent once the law is fully implemented. So with our national debt now approaching $16 trillion and compounding exponentially, as we borrow 42 cents of every $1 we spend every day, instead of reining in costs, the health care law is doubling down with spending. But the Medicaid expansion did not stop with wrecking Federal budgets. It hammers State budgets as well. This program already consumes 24 percent of State budgets. The law's Medicaid expansion will force $118 billion in additional unfunded mandates on our States through 2023. The National Governors Association has weighed in on this issue. They said: ``Spending on Medicaid is expected to consume an increasing share of State budgets and grow much more rapidly than State revenue growth, resulting in slow or no growth in education, transportation, or public safety.'' The Nebraska impact tells the story. The Governor commissioned a study in Nebraska to see what the impact would be on the health care law on the State budget. Nebraska will spend an additional $526 million to $766 million over the next 10 years on its Medicaid Program. The expansion could add up to 145,000 Nebraskans to the Medicaid Program over the next decade. Currently, one in nine Nebraskans is enrolled in Medicaid. The new provisions of the law will expand eligibility to one in five Nebraskans, 20 percent. Governor Heineman addressed this issue. He said: This unfunded and unparalleled expansion of Medicaid is an unfair and unsustainable mandate on Nebraska and other States. The Federal health care law is an extraordinarily large and excessive unfunded mandate for States. It is potentially devastating to our State budget. Today, with me on the floor, I am joined by two former Governors. All three of us have had to deal with balancing budgets, and we had no choice but to make sure that at the end of our legislative sessions, our budgets were, in fact, balanced. Senator Alexander was vocal in speaking out against this policy during the health care debate. He has a rather unique perspective because not only is he a former Governor, he is a former U.S. Secretary of Education. I would like the Senator to take a few minutes and explain how this law is going to effect the health care system, our educational system, our States, and for that matter our country.

Mr. JOHANNS. Senator Alexander has raised some excellent points there because Governors only have so much revenue they can deal with; they cannot invent it, if you know what I am saying. So Governors have to figure out what the needs of the State are. If the Federal Government is taking that decision away from Governors by forcing them into expanding their Medicaid, there is going to be less money available for programs such as K 12 education, higher education. Let me, if I might, turn to our colleague Senator Hoeven. He was a Governor for 10 years in the State of North Dakota. Will the Senator please explain the impact Medicaid expansion would have on budget decisions as a Governor and the impact the health care bill is going to have on the Senator's State.

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hoeven for his comments. He mentioned that job one for every Governor is job creation. Before I turn to Senator Alexander, let me congratulate Senator Hoeven. Whatever he did in that capacity worked. He has the lowest unemployment rate of any State. I am proud to say Nebraska is No. 2 in that regard. I will guarantee one thing you learn: You don't create jobs by putting a big wet blanket of more regulations on the job creators. I worry that all these rules and regulations are going to have a very damaging impact on job creation. I would like Senator Alexander to talk about that, what he sees as the impact of this health care bill on job creation in our States.

Mr. JOHANNS. The Senator raises a good point. I am mindful of our time limit. I am going to take a minute or two to wrap up. I do think Senator Alexander and Senator Hoeven both raised very good points. I look at the health care law and I often think, whoever wrote this law, who were they talking to? They certainly were not talking to our small- and medium-sized businesses across this country. Why? Because just as Senator Alexander points out, there is going to be a point where that business owner, large or small, and in each and every spot in between, will look at the penalty of $2,000 per employee and say it is vastly cheaper for them to drop coverage and pay the penalty. In fact, we figured out what that savings would be for a large retailer in the United States. It was over $1 billion a year. Does anybody believe for a moment that they are not going to do what is right by their shareholders and pay that penalty and save $1 billion a year by dropping health care coverage? Once that dam breaks, the dam breaks. Then do you remember that promise so often made--47 times? The President said, ``If you like your plan, you are going to be able to keep it.'' Well, people are not going to be able to keep it. They will lose their plans. They certainly were not talking to Governors when they wrote this bill. Any Governor would tell us that Medicaid is a broken system. It is literally bankrupting State budgets under current circumstances. Then when we add 26 million more people to Medicaid, we begin to realize they are going to have a serious access problem. Forty percent of doctors do not take Medicaid patients. Where are they going to find their health care? As many of us pointed out, it is like saying to someone: Here is your bus ticket, travel anywhere you want--oh, by the way, there are not enough buses to haul all the people we have given tickets to. That is what we are going to be facing--a growing access problem. Then, with the cuts to Medicare, they sure could not have been talking to Medicare providers because when they start cutting reimbursement rates, which is exactly what they are doing with $\1/2\ trillion cut out of Medicare, they are going to have access problems there too. All of a sudden senior citizens cannot find a doctor. Don't believe my statement on that. Read the reports from Richard Foster, the Chief Actuary at CMS, who studied this and said these are the consequences of this legislation. At the end of the day it is pretty clear to all of us that this is a failed policy that was quickly put together, rammed through to roll over the minority and get this done. We ended up with a very failed piece of legislation. The American people do not like this legislation any better than the day it was passed. In fact, they like it less. The more they learn about this legislation, the less they like it. I will wrap up with one thought. We all know the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on this case these days. It is my hope the Supreme Court will intervene and decide that this law is in fact unconstitutional, and then we can build a health care law the way it should be done--a step at a time, consulting with medical providers and Governors all across this country to build a policy that makes sense for the health care system and our citizens. That is what should have been done in the first place. That is what we need to do. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, the anniversary of any new law should be a time to celebrate accomplishments and new landmarks. But the almost constant flow of bad news, unfavorable reports, and broken promises makes the second anniversary of the health care law anything but a celebration. Rather, it is something that even the White House seems embarrassed to mention. The truth is the policy behind the bill was flawed. The truth is that the law is fundamentally flawed. It raises taxes and health care costs for working Americans. It puts bureaucrats between patients and their doctors. It tangles our Nation's job creators in regulations and redtape, and it defies our country's most sacred document--the Constitution of the United States. Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court begins hearings to determine whether the health care law violates the Constitution. It is one of the most important cases reviewed in recent history. The Court has set aside a remarkable 6 hours for oral arguments--more time than has been devoted to a case in over four decades. Its ruling will have a far- reaching impact on our health care system, but it doesn't stop there. It will have a far-reaching impact on our economy, and fundamentally on the expanse of congressional authority over the individual citizen. I hope the Supreme Court will resolve the countless problems in this law for good by striking it down in its entirety. The facts tell us that with the passage of time, things have not gotten better with this law; they have, in fact, gotten worse. Take last week's report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as one example. We learned something about the cost of this bill. Before the bill was passed, many of us were saying this bill was filled with budget gimmicks to make it look cheaper to the American people than it was. Well, we learned that the cost of the law's coverage provisions alone is projected to balloon to $1.7 trillion. The problem is that CBO only does 10-year projections, so the major provisions of this law were delayed until 2014. Why? Well, the reason for that is it was done to mask the true costs of this bill when it was fully implemented. When we eliminate gimmicks such as this and consider the law's first 10 years of full implementation, I fully expect the total cost of this legislation will not be the $900 billion promised by President Obama, it will be $2.6 trillion. This law certainly doesn't bend the cost curve down. CBO concludes that families buying insurance on their own will pay an astounding $2,100 more a year for that insurance. Yet then-Candidate Obama promised that Americans would see their premiums decrease by $2,500 by the end of his first term. The recent CBO report also noted that the Federal Government will spend $168 billion more on Medicaid compared to last year's estimate. The truth keeps coming out. That means more people will be trapped in a broken program where waiting lines will, in fact, be longer, emergency room visits will be more frequent, because that is the only place they can find care, health care outcomes will get worse, and 40 percent of physicians today won't even see patients in this program. This law does not deliver better quality health care either. Imposing Medicaid on more people is like giving someone a ticket to ride a bus that has broken down hundreds of miles away but claiming they have a ticket so, in fact, they have the opportunity for transportation. Not only that, the law puts all the pressure and burden on our States to implement the Medicaid Program's largest expansion since 1965, placing $118 billion in unfunded mandates on States, when our States are struggling to figure out how they balance their budgets today. As a former Governor who has balanced budgets, I believe this expansion dumped on our States to manage is a critical and fatal flaw of this legislation. CBO also recently projected that up to 20 million more working Americans could lose their employer-sponsored health care coverage because of this health care law. That is an incredible shift, especially when we consider that our President promised no fewer than 47 different times: ``If you like your plan, you can keep it.'' In addition to a potential 20 million employees losing their current coverage, 7 million seniors are likely to lose their Medicare Advantage plans. According to the Congressional Budget Office Director, more than 3,200 Nebraskans enrolled in Medicare Advantage will, in fact, have their benefits cut in half. Families in 17 States, including Nebraska, no longer have access to child-only health insurance because of mandates in the law. Wait a second. I just said in 17 States they no longer have access to a child-only health insurance policy because of this law's effect. That is incredible. Our Nebraska insurance commissioner called this collapse of the child-only market ``an example of the unintended consequences of this imperfect law.'' Here we see the President's promise, again, flipped on its head: This law forces you to say goodbye to the coverage you like for children. Over the past 2 years, I have traveled across the great State of Nebraska hosting townhalls, roundtables, and meetings, and I am finding that the more folks know about this law, the more they detest it. Religious schools and hospitals and charities are troubled because the law will force them to violate their deeply held beliefs. Seniors are concerned that the law will limit access to care because it siphons $500 billion from Medicare and uses it as a piggy bank to spend on other government programs. The administration's own Medicare Actuary has projected ``the prices paid by Medicare for health services are very likely to fall increasingly short of the costs of providing these services.'' The CMS Actuary continued that these Medicare cuts could result in ``severe problems with beneficiary access to care.'' Let me translate that. That means this law will make it more difficult for senior citizens to get health care because the Federal Government is not paying its way. Others wonder what the 159 new boards established by this law will mean for access to health care, and hard- working Nebraskans question how the law's $\1/2\ trillion in taxes will affect their families. Approximately 428,000 Nebraskan households making less than $200,000 will pay higher taxes--approximately 428,000. That is based on estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Small businesses across Nebraska have shared with me that they are holding off on hiring because of the mandates in this legislation. At a roundtable last week, business men and women expressed their concerns about the law's tax on health insurance companies in the fully insured market, and with good reason. The health insurance tax alone could impose $87 billion in costs on businesses and their employees over the law's first 10 years alone. An analysis by the National Federation of Independent Business indicates this law will force the private sector--will force the private sector--to cut between 124,000 and 249,000 jobs between now and 2021. That is not just a statistic, those are families who will lose a job because of this health care bill. It is remarkable that in the midst of our economic situation, the President's signature legislation actually reduces jobs. These are some of the many reasons Nebraskans are demanding louder than ever that this law be repealed. Now, some of the law's supporters have taken up the mantra: Well, don't repeal it, repair it. That is a nice slogan. This law, though, is so fatally flawed no bandaid is ever going to fix it. I experienced firsthand how difficult it is to change this law when I worked to repeal the 1099 reporting requirement, which nearly everybody agreed was idiotic. It would have increased paperwork burdens on our Nation's job creators by up to 2,000 percent. The administration even agreed this pay-for in their law needed to go, and, in the end, 87 Senators supported full repeal of the provision. But it took 9 months and 7 votes before my efforts to repeal a provision that everybody agreed was idiotic was finally successful. So anyone who tells you we can tinker with the law to fix it might as well offer you ocean-front property in the State of Nebraska. The 2,700-page law is one of the largest pieces of legislation ever passed in this Nation's history. Its provisions are interconnected, ill-fated, and far-reaching, and they will affect every single American economically, socially, and physically. We cannot sit idly by and allow for the negative consequences to continue unraveling, and they will. As I said, I hope the Supreme Court strikes down this entire law. But if it does not, we will continue our fight to repeal it, as Nebraskans demand that I do. We must protect the rights of Americans to choose their doctors, to select their insurance, to trust their care, and to protect their conscience rights. We must ensure employers see reforms that reduce regulations and redtape and instead increase efficiencies and address the underlying costs. We must give States the flexibility to run their Medicaid Program in the best way that serves the needs of those vulnerable populations in that State. This law is misguided. It stifles job growth and does not improve health care for millions of Americans, and it should be wiped off the books. Americans are demanding it, Nebraskans are demanding it, and they deserve that.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues Senator Portman and Senator Coburn.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, we rise today to engage in a colloquy on an issue that is certainly front and center and has been for a long time in our great Nation, and that is the issue of the health care bill. This bill is hurting working Americans and small businesses, and they are the lifeblood of our economy. Let me, if I might, talk about a company from Nebraska: Toba, Inc. Toba is located in Grand Island, NE. They are a food distributor in central Nebraska. They employ about 200 to 300 people, depending on the time of the year. It is companies such as this that are the heart and soul of the Nebraska economy. Tony Wald is the chief executive officer of Toba. He shared with me not long ago that their health care premiums recently increased by 26 percent. Tony's insurance agency talked to him. Of course, Tony wanted to know: What is going on here? What is wrong? Well, the insurance agent said to Tony there were several provisions in the health care law that were the reason for the increase. Let me put this in perspective. That 26-percent increase is an extra $188,000 increase that ultimately falls in the laps of the employees of Toba. Hundreds of working Americans will see their premiums go up as a result of this health care law. Let me point out something that is very obvious. That is a broken promise. Then-Candidate Obama promised that Americans would see their premiums decrease--decrease--by $2,500 by the end of his first term in office. Well, that has not been the reality. This health care law drives up premiums and Toba is a perfect example of that. But I need not stop there. Let me talk about Yellow Van Cleaning and Restoration Services in Kearney, NE, just down the road a bit from Grand Island. This small business employs 48 people. The owner is a fine gentleman by the name of Dave Keiter. He believes he has positioned his company correctly to grow it. In fact, some recent market research that was done shows his company is poised for growth. They have done all of the right things to take this small business and lay the right foundation so they can grow. Dave was faced with a tough choice--a choice not caused by his competitors, a choice not caused by a bad economy. He was faced with a tough choice caused by President Barack Obama and Democrats in the House and Senate who passed the health care bill. What is his tough choice? He had to choose not to expand because he will run smack-dab into the employer mandate if he grows his business. You see, this mandate requires that employers with at least 50 full- time employees offer government-approved health insurance to their employees or pay a fine of $2,000 per employee. Dave did the calculation on this--a small business, with tight profit margins, doing everything they can to make the right decisions. Dave's calculation indicates he will be penalized more than $50,000 a year if he grows beyond his current 48-member staff. There is no doubt about it. This law is stifling job creation. Not only does this law prevent jobs from being created, it is forcing businesses to actually eliminate jobs. An Iowa-based insurance company recently decided to exit the individual insurance market, abandoning sales directly to individuals and families. So what happens? Thirty-five thousand policyholders lose that insurance through that company. But it does not stop there. Mr. President, 110 employees will lose their jobs--70 in Nebraska. A driving factor is the medical loss ratio provision in the law which micromanages how insurance companies spend their revenues. The CEO of the insurance company said job loss was ``a fairly predictable consequence of the regulation.'' These are not hypothetical situations. Before the law was passed, I came to the floor many times with my colleagues and pointed out the flaws in this ill-conceived legislation. Now we are telling real stories, real-life stories and talking about real people who have lost their jobs and are being impacted by this ill-advised law. There is more. While I can directly point out that 70 Nebraskans lose their job, the Congressional Budget Office says the new law will mean 800,000 fewer jobs over the next decade. Similar to Yellow Van Cleaning in Kearney, NE, other businesses are holding off on hiring. In a recent Gallup survey, 48 percent of small businesses are not hiring because of the potential cost of health insurance under the health care law. Financial sector analysts at UBS have stated that the law is ``arguably the biggest impediment to hiring, particularly hiring of less skilled workers.'' Those are the people who need the jobs most. The Congressional Budget Office estimates average premiums will increase by 27 to 30 percent under this law largely because the new health care law's coverage mandates will force premiums up. It is no wonder Toba in Grand Island, NE, is seeing its health care costs go up by a staggering $188,000 per year. The Medicare Actuary says this law will increase health care spending by $311 billion over the next 10 years. Two years have passed and things are only getting worse. This law is suffocating job growth around the country. Let me, if I might, now turn to my colleagues. I have a question, if I might start with Senator Portman. Senator Portman joins me on the floor and I appreciate that. I know the Senator has a unique perspective because he has served as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Does the Senator see this law increasing costs in his home State? Is it straining job creators as we are seeing in Nebraska?

Mr. JOHANNS. I thank Senator Portman. The Senator has made so many excellent points. I believe if we look at the people who have spoken about this legislation, before and after its passage, one would be hard-pressed to find anyone who speaks with greater authority than Dr. Tom Coburn, who is a Member of the Senate. I would ask Dr. Coburn to weigh in on this health care bill. He has talked through the years so often about what this health care bill is doing to medicine, the impact it is going to have on patients, the impact on the economy, the impact on jobs. I would like the Senator to talk to us today about what he is seeing as we are literally on the time of the second anniversary and tell us how this is panning out. It has been the law now for a couple of years. What is the reality of this legislation?

Mr. JOHANNS. Let me express my appreciation, but let me also follow up with a question because I think it is important. The Senator mentioned IPAB. This was a little-discussed provision, although the Senator kept pointing it out. Talk about the powers of this group and where you think it is leading.

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

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, today I wish to applaud the spirit of community betterment that led to a beautiful new wing of the Phelps Memorial Health Center in Holdrege, NE. As often occurs across our great State, citizens in the area saw a need and rose to meet it. They joined forces with officials at the hospital and set a determined course, without holding out their hands for taxpayer dollars to make it happen. They recognized that high quality medical care is part of the lifeblood of the community and knew the hospital would benefit from renovation and expansion. So, they rolled up their sleeves and came together to create the vision, raise the money and turn the dirt. Some doubted the community would accomplish a multimillion dollar expansion during a recession in a rural area without taxpayer dollars. Those doubters underestimated the motivation of Nebraskans who love their community. Citizens in the area have proven that there is no limit to what can be accomplished when people come together. The new, state-of-the-art wing is truly impressive. I was honored to see it firsthand when I attended the ribbon-cutting ceremony and applauded the many people who poured their hearts into the project. The nearly 50,000 additional square feet; four cutting-edge operating suites; and patient rooms with maximum comfort and connectivity are remarkable, to say the least. The heart and soul of healthcare in Nebraska is a hospital like the Phelps Memorial Health Center, providing high-quality and compassionate care close to home. Today I celebrate their success in turning an aging institution into a state-of-the-art facility and highlight it as a shining example of what can be accomplished with determination and commitment.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, let me start this afternoon by thanking my colleague from Missouri for taking on this issue and putting this legislation together. Let me also thank my colleague for telling the real story of this legislation. It is critically important we understand the history that brings us here this afternoon and, ultimately, to a vote on this legislation I am proud to cosponsor. My colleague just so ably pointed out that what has changed is, the Obama administration, working with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, took this important language out of this health care legislation. For decades--for decades--this important protection was in legislation, and it was supported by Democrats, Republicans, Independents, liberals, conservatives. That was the history of our country until all of a sudden this change came about where that conscience protection was taken out of the health care legislation that was passed a couple years ago. But let's look back even further in our history. The first freedom in our Bill of Rights is the liberty to exercise any religion we might choose, or for that matter not participate in any religion whatsoever. That is what this United States of America is based upon, this concept that we have the freedom to choose what faith we will belong to, what teachings we will follow, and, as I said, we have the choice to not participate at all, if we choose, in this country. Yet the President and my colleagues from across the aisle want to force--want to force--religious institutions, for the first time in the history of our country, to violate their strong moral convictions. And they go even further. They want to somehow shroud this and veil it as a woman's health issue. Let me set the record straight. This debate is not about that, as some would have us believe. It certainly is not about contraceptives. What this debate is about is fundamental to our freedom as citizens of this great country. It is religious liberty we are talking about. It is an American issue that dates back to our very Founders who looked at the war they had just fought and said to themselves: We are never going to allow our country to force us to attend a certain church or to participate in a certain faith--not at all. And it was written in one of our most sacred documents, the Bill of Rights. Yet the President of the United States is trampling on this religious freedom and attempting to convince Americans that it is something else. His power grab is forcing religious institutions to go against their deeply held beliefs. If they stay true to their beliefs, the Congressional Research Service reports these religious insurers and employers may face Federal fines of $100 per day per plan. So let me give an example of how that will work in my State. For a self-insured institution such as Creighton University in Nebraska, a Jesuit institution--I happen to have graduated from there--they have about 6,000 health care plans. So the cost to Creighton University in Omaha, NE, to exercise their religious liberty will be an annual pricetag of $24 million. That is the price of exercising their religious liberty in the President's world. Unbelievable. Well, I went on the Internet. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an open letter to the President that is being signed by women all over this country.

Mr. JOHANNS. Women have signed this, and one of the things they say is, they are proud to work for institutions that contribute to their community. Let me quote from that letter. They value ``the shared sense of purpose found among colleagues who choose their job because, in a religious institution, a job is . . . also a vocation.'' These women are Americans who believe this mandate by the Federal Government, interfering with religious liberty, is wrong. I will wrap up my piece of this colloquy by again thanking the Senator from Missouri for his leadership in this area. The President has said he offered an accommodation. The accommodation is, woe, lo and behold, this is going to be free. Now, I would like to know what legal authority he relies upon that the President could ever order anyone to offer a service or an item for free. He has no such authority. This is not the Soviet Union; this is the United States of America. We do not believe that for a moment. Of course we are going to be paying for this through our insurance premiums. Well, my hope is we will read our Constitution and we will stand as a united front upholding religious freedom, which is being violated by this mandate. I thank the Chair.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I rise today to take a few minutes to comment on the bill that the Senate will soon be considering to state why I oppose the bill in its current form. I am speaking of the bill that we oftentimes refer to as the Transportation bill. I do think this bill does some good things. I supported it coming out of the EPW Committee. It had very sound bipartisan support in that committee. But there is a serious concern with the bill, a concern for all of us. Specifically, there is a provision in the bill that is what I would call an earmark. However, it is often referred to by our rule as a congressionally directed spending item. Let me again say, purely and simply, it is an earmark. That is why, even though I supported the bill in committee, I did feel very strongly about that provision and I felt compelled to vote against proceeding to the bill and that is why I am here today, filing an amendment. This provision changes the purpose of an earmark that was included in the previous highway bill. Then the language goes on to do a second thing: It newly directs the money back to the same State where the earmarked project would have occurred, that being the State of Nevada. Let me repeat that. It takes an unspent earmark from a previous highway bill in Nevada and it replaces it with yet another earmark to the State of Nevada. I will go into further detail. First, the bill identifies any unobligated balances associated with this earmark. The bill reads: . . . any unobligated balances of amounts required to be allocated to a State by section such and such of the SAFETEA

Mr. JOHANNS

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

Mr. JOHANNS. I ask unanimous consent to participate in a colloquy with my colleagues, Senators Blunt, Risch, Isakson, and Heller.

Mr. JOHANNS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, we rise today to talk about the budget that was submitted by the President of the United States, actually within the last 24 hours. Despite a 2009 promise to literally cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, President Obama released a budget that, for the fourth year in a row, calls for a deficit in excess of $1 trillion. Unfortunately, this proposal is one more year of the same old story: more taxes, more spending, more borrowing, and yet another punt on the tough issues we as a Nation must face. As a former Governor, I understand what it takes to balance a budget. Difficult choices do have to be made, even with programs that are popular. In 2001, when I was Governor of Nebraska, I closed a $220 million budget shortfall and didn't raise taxes. But $220 million is merely a drop in the bucket for the Federal budget that amounted to more than 7 percent in Nebraska. By comparison, if the President had submitted a budget that cut spending by 7 percent, he would be cutting more than $260 billion this year. That wasn't the last thing we had to do. With the post-9/11 economy, we called special session after special session to cut spending. But instead of that, the President is projected to increase spending. Leadership is necessary and, sadly, this budget does not display it. Instead, America's balance sheet continues to drown in a sea of red ink for yet another year, driving our 2012 deficit to nearly $1.4 trillion. Instead of making tough choices about priorities, the President appears to be doubling down on more stimulus spending. Let me give a few examples, and then I will invite my colleagues to join me: $2 billion in new tax credits for the production of advanced technology vehicles; $4 billion to extend and modify ``certain energy incentives which could include clean renewable energy bonds;'' $3 billion to encourage investments in advanced energy manufacturing projects; $4.7 billion for new spending to strengthen the teaching profession despite GAO finding 82 duplicative and wasteful teacher quality programs. When we add it all, we are presented with yet another budget that contains the largest tax increase in U.S. history. It raises taxes by more than $1.8 trillion. I could go on and on. This is simply a situation where we have seen this budget before, and it doesn't improve. I will turn to my colleague Senator Blunt, from the State of Missouri, who has worked on these budgets before, and I will ask him to offer some insights of what he sees in this budget and where it is leading our country, in his opinion.

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for laying out what this budget is all about and the problems we are seeing. Senator Isakson has been a leader in trying to reform the budget process. I say to Senator Isakson, I would like you to offer thoughts on what you see in this budget and some ideas on how we can improve this situation we find ourselves in with the President's budget wanting more taxing, more borrowing, more spending.

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by Senator Isakson. I wish to take a moment to follow up on his comments relative to Medicare and Social Security. Then I would ask Senator Blunt to offer a few words on where we go from here, what do we anticipate we have to do to set the ship of state on the right course, if you will. But let me speak to the issue of Medicare and Social Security. Senator Isakson could not be more right. When you get paid, you can literally go to your paycheck stub and you can see the amount of money that is being withheld out of your paycheck--throughout your life--for Social Security benefits and for Medicare benefits. When these programs were set up, thereabouts, a group was put together--they were referred to as trustees--and they basically did a fair analysis of where these programs were and where they were headed. Every year, they put out a report, and we will be getting another annual report in the not too distant future. But I think we all know what the report is going to say. The report is going to say that in the vicinity of about 2024, if not a bit sooner, Social Security literally is going to be insolvent. It is also going to say Medicare is literally in a position where it will be upside down financially sooner than that. The greatest challenge between the two, obviously, is Medicare. What does that mean to people who are currently beneficiaries or about to retire and planning on these items being there for them? Well, what it means is, that plan could be in serious jeopardy. It is not because Mike Johanns woke up last night and said that or dreamt it or thought about it. It is because people who are empowered to look at Social Security and Medicare have studied it very closely, have looked at the financial pieces of this, and have come to this conclusion. Now let's examine the President's budget. What plan does he have to protect Medicare or Social Security? Well, he does not have a plan. These are not easy issues. I am not arguing here today this is easy to take on. But what I am saying to the American people is, if you study this budget or any other budget submitted by this President, he is doing nothing to arrest literally our progress toward these very important programs becoming insolvent. If there was ever an area in this budget where we need Presidential leadership, it is right here. I would ask Senator Blunt for his thoughts. The Senator has studied these issues over the years and has offered great insight. Where do we go from here? What are the Senator's thoughts in terms of this budget and how we get back on track?

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I anticipate Senator Heller will probably seek the floor. But this concludes our colloquy. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHANNS

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the developments of the past few weeks which, in my view, have been incredibly tragic but maybe, on the other hand, reassuring. On the one hand, it is tragic that our own government launched an attack on first amendment rights. The President launched this assault unapologetically in the black-and-white print of a rule that clearly restricts religious liberties. It says contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs must be provided free of charge to women. What the President did not anticipate by his rule was the backlash it would generate. It is reassuring, on the other hand, to know that Americans will make their voices heard when their constitutional rights are being trampled. For the first time in many years, people of many different faiths, as well as the defenders of the Constitution, have found a unifying rallying cry. They are sending the message that enough is enough; it is time to stop this administration's march into every single facet of our lives. At issue is one of the very basic rights in this country. It is one of the basic rights this country was founded to protect. It is the right to freely exercise religion--a right this President pledged to uphold when taking the oath of office. Many Americans were lulled into complacency in 2009 by promises that apparently the President did not intend to uphold. Back then I came to the Senate floor to address this identical issue. In the thick of the very contentious health care debate, I urged my pro-life colleagues and the pro-life community to stand up against the health care bill that was being considered here in the Senate. I pointed out that the Hyde amendment, which prohibits taxpayer dollars from being used for abortion, was absolutely absent in the bill, something that now appears to be no accident whatsoever. On that day I shared the National Right to Life's very real concerns that the bill ``tries to conceal that unpopular reality with layers of contrived definitions and hollow bookkeeping requirements.'' Unfortunately, though, empty promises that the bill respected life were enough to convince my presumably pro-life colleagues to support the bill. After all, they had heard the promises straight from the President's mouth. Remember when the President told Americans ``under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and Federal conscience laws will remain in place.'' Congress ignored the warnings, charged forward, blurry eyed, voting in the middle of the night, and passed the health care bill that we all now know violates the very conscience rights the President himself by his own words promised to protect. As the law is being put into place, we are truly heading into uncharted waters for this Nation. On Friday, after weeks of criticism, the President announced a so-called compromise. We were told by his Chief of Staff that it will be that way or it will be the highway. So what is the compromise? It would still force every plan to offer free contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs, even plans offered by religious organizations with deeply held religious beliefs. The President claims religious employers with objections won't technically be required to offer the coverage because insurance companies will be forced to offer it free. What? Are we, as Americans, expected to believe that the many religious organizations paying the employer's share of the health care costs are not paying for these services? What kind of accounting gimmick is that? What kind of sleight of hand is that? The President is blinded by his ideology. This fight is about religious and moral beliefs. It is not about accounting. What we have witnessed this past week is another attempt to hide the unpopular reality with layers of misleading rhetoric and hollowed promises. The truth? The truth is that many individuals who object to contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs as a matter of religious principle will still have to provide them and pay for them. Don't fool yourself; they are not going to be free. Drug companies don't walk in and give away free drugs. Pharmacists don't dispense them free. Of course, the cost will be passed along to every employer and every American in the form of premiums that we pay. Calling these services free is flat wrong. There is a cost and, unfortunately, it is a high one at that. They come at the cost of our religious freedoms. The administration's position is that it can force insurers to provide contraceptive coverage for ``free'' because the drugs are cheaper than the cost of being pregnant. Our government said that at the very highest level. That logic is unprecedented and it is downright disturbing. Who is to say that in days to come the administration won't order health plans to cover abortion free on the premise that it is cheaper than the cost of prenatal care, birth, and caring for human life? The same twisted logic could apply for physician-assisted suicide and a whole array of controversial procedures. Many out there may try to refute this by repeating the President's claim that the law prohibits mandated abortions, but that same claim promised to protect the religious liberties he is now forcing many to violate. Well, many of us will not sit idly by and watch this unprecedented effort, and I am not alone. The President should listen to the country. The gimmicks of the 2009 bill may have put some to sleep. This time Americans are not being fooled. Americans of all faiths, all beliefs, of different views on a whole variety of topics share a love for their Constitution and the rights embodied in that Constitution. Well, they are awake now and their eyes are fully open. As a Catholic myself, I could not be more proud of the Catholic bishops for standing strongly. Their statement rejecting the President's smoke-and-mirrors compromise is compelling and it is spot on. The bishop said: . . . today's proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion into the internal governance of religious institutions and to threaten government coercion of religious people . . . to violate their most deeply held convictions. And they go on to say: In a Nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and its founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution . . . is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services. Yes, we were told by the President's Chief of Staff negotiating is over, it will now be our way or the highway. Well, the bishops responded. The bishops called the President's attempt to appease them unacceptable. Yes, America has been awakened and now Congress must act on their objections. There is legislation waiting to be debated that would protect the religious liberties granted in our Constitution. The legislation introduced by Senator Roy Blunt holds President Obama to his promises. This legislation continues the 200-year tradition of this great Nation ensuring those who believe in the sanctity of life are not forced to have a hand in someone else's death. It protects conscience rights across the board. There is a bottom line and the bottom line is this: If President Obama is allowed to dictate to religious organizations what beliefs they will be allowed to hold or not to hold, then this country we all love will be a much different place and it will be a much different place for our children and grandchildren. If the President succeeds, then our Constitution is no longer the defining document of a great Nation. Well, we do know the position of this administration, and I stand here today to categorically reject it. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHANNS

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