Floor Statements

Mr. President, I stand here today as a cosponsor of the cut, cap, and balance legislation and as a supporter of that legislation. Here is the insanity that has gripped not only this body but all of Washington. We are literally in here where we will have the third year in a row of deficits over $1 trillion.

In fact, current projections are that this annual deficit will set a record--a very dubious record, I might add--of $1.6 trillion-plus. We were promised 3 years ago if this enormous, gargantuan effort to force more spending into the economy with the stimulus plan were passed, that trillion-dollar effort would put this country on a path to recovery. It has done nothing except raise our debt and pass the problem on to our children and grandchildren.

After weeks and months of work on an idea to rein in the spending and to come to grips with where we are in this country, we are literally at a point where, within minutes, we will vote on a motion to table that effort. We will be right back to where we are today. We will be right back to a situation where we will face trillion-dollar deficits. We will be right back to a situation where every economist in the world is telling the United States of America--the largest economy--that its spending is not sustainable. We will be right back to rating agencies looking at our government debt and saying: You have not come up with a plan to rein this in, so you are being targeted to be downgraded.

What we are really right back to is this: We have a government that is too big. We have too many promises that have been made, where no one had any idea how they would be paid for. By the end of the year, we will have a deficit of $15 trillion, which is significantly understated. In 4 more years, we will have a debt of $20 trillion, which will still be significantly understated. Somehow there are Members of this body who are arguing that this is a better way--to table cut, cap, and balance so we can return to where we are today.

Is it any wonder that those of us who are concerned about this and concerned about the future of our children and grandchildren are coming to the floor and saying: Wait a minute. This is destroying our Nation.

Mr. President, I have risen today, as I have many times over the last days, to say: Support this effort. Support cut, cap, and balance. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this very important legislation which has the potential to change the direction of what we are doing. I am going to be one of the people who support this legislation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleagues for up to 30 minutes. Senator Alexander of Tennessee, Senator Hoeven of North Dakota, and Senator Risch of Idaho will participate with me in this colloquy.

Madam President, I rise today to speak to an issue that I believe has all the potential in the world to define the future of this great country. It is an issue with which all of us who are participating in this colloquy are very familiar, and that is a balanced budget. All of us are former Governors of the States from which we come.

In my State, the State of Nebraska, our Nebraska Constitution requires a balanced budget. It is not unusual. I believe 49 out of 50 States have this requirement in their constitution. It is not theater; it is the way we do things at the State level.

In addition to that provision, however, our State constitution also says the total amount of money the State of Nebraska can borrow is $100,000. What does that mean? We must balance the budget on an annual basis, and we cannot go out to the debt market and burden our children and grandchildren by fulfilling promises that, quite honestly, we have no idea how we pay for. We cannot do that.

Does that sound familiar? That is what the Federal Government does every single year, and the Federal Government has been doing it for decades. In Nebraska we are forced to prioritize and live within our means. We have a very simple, straightforward philosophy. We do not promise something we cannot pay for, and we do not buy something we cannot pay for.

Is that unusual? Is that radical? Every working family in America understands that, and they live by that simple concept: the simple concept that they should not buy what they cannot pay for. If they do, it gets them in trouble. Sadly, the Federal Government does not think that applies. It thinks it is kind of a radical notion to apply that to what happens in Washington.

Let's look at the results of this kind of policy in my State of Nebraska. The unemployment rate in Nebraska today is 4.1 percent. During one of the most difficult times since the Great Depression, the unemployment rate in Nebraska never exceeded 5 percent. As I have said before on this floor--let me state that a different way. That means about 96 percent of Nebraskans have work.

Our State believes in the philosophy of less government. I have said many times: Government does not create the jobs, the private sector creates the jobs. It is small businesses and businesses willing to take the risks that will get us out of the tough times we are in now.

When I was Governor, Nebraska went through some very difficult times. I was Governor on 9/11. I was Governor when the dot-com bubble burst. I did

not have the option of walking into my State of the State Address and standing there and saying: Folks, these are tough times. We are kind of divided out here. We will not be passing a budget. Had I said that, I would have been looking for another State to live in. I would have been laughed out of the Governor's office.

There were no easy decisions, but there were necessary and important decisions to be made. Nebraskan pragmatism would go a long way in Washington, but my State is not unique. My State is not unique in terms of this balanced budget requirement. In fact, I have other Governors with me today.

I would like to start out by recognizing Senator Lamar Alexander of the State of Tennessee. When Senator Alexander became Governor, I know he had a lot of priorities, but he created an environment in which job creators could thrive. He created that environment with the spending requirements of his constitution. I would like him to tell us how he did it, how he took his State forward even though he had to balance his budget.

Senator Alexander raises such a valid point. In the State of Nebraska we don't have any road debt either. If we wanted to pave a mile of highway we had to have the money in the bank or it did not get done. The other advantage of that is when the economy started to lift, we did not have to pay back all that money we had borrowed. We were ready to take off. So I would have to imagine in Tennessee, like Nebraska, our economic recovery was just much easier to achieve.

I had the pleasure of serving as Governor of Nebraska when Senator Hoeven was Governor of North Dakota. The State of North Dakota is often recognized as one of the best managed States in the country. It has its fiscal house in order. It runs a surplus with some of the lowest unemployment rates of any State in the country. Yet they suffered through some of the same problems we had after the dot-com collapse.

Could the Senator talk to us a little bit about how the balanced budget provisions in his constitution required him and the legislators to manage the State?

Let me thank Senator Hoeven. I noticed today we are also joined by another former Governor. In fact, we were both elected to the Senate at the same time so we are both part of the same class.

Senator Risch, at one point in his career, served as Governor of the State of Idaho. He had financial restrictions just as we did in terms of a balanced budget. I ask the Senator, how was he able to deal with important priorities while balancing the budget and bringing the legislative process along in accomplishing that? Could the Senator talk to us a little bit about that today?

Let me wrap up this colloquy this morning by thanking each one of my colleagues for their comments.

Governors are practical people. We have to be. We have no choice. If jobs are going to be created in our States, we must lead that effort-- not by jawboning and indicting the business community but by creating the atmosphere that creates those jobs. If we are going to have a balanced budget, we must lead that effort at the State level. Every Governor who has had an opportunity to speak this morning in this colloquy has made that point. At the end of the day, when our legislative sessions were over, we had to be able to tell the people of our great States that we passed the budget; that the budget was, in fact, balanced; and, for some of us, that we did not borrow any money whatsoever to get that job done. We could learn something in Washington from that.

This is not a radical idea. All the rhetoric we have heard about what a radical, crazy idea this is--well, how can it be so radical if 49 out of 50 States have decided this is the right course and the right direction for their State governments? I can't imagine the American people want anything less for their Federal Government. And, as Senator Risch has just pointed out, why would we not give the American people the opportunity to cast their vote on how best to manage their government--their government?

With that, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about a topic that I think has made all the difference in the world for my State of Nebraska.

I did have the privilege, a few years back, of serving as the Governor of the State of Nebraska. Until I came out to join the Cabinet as Secretary of Agriculture, I served about 6 years. Before that, I was the mayor of our State capital in the community of Lincoln, a great community. We followed the same pattern at the Governor's office that we did at the mayor's office. And we Governors had a simple principle: We did not spend money we did not have.

Before I talk about the balanced budget amendment, let me explain how that worked as mayor of Lincoln. My budget staff would go to work. They worked on the budget pretty much year-round--really, it was a year- round endeavor--and at some point in the process I would get a stack of paperwork that was about an inch thick, with line after line after line after line of items they were proposing we needed to spend money on to keep the city running. There would be everything from police cars to whatever, to salaries. I mean, imagine what it takes to run a city, and it would be on that list. I would go through item by item, page by page, studying each entry. Ultimately, we came to a conclusion for each entry: Yes, I believe this is necessary to keep our city going.

Well, somewhere in that thick stack of paperwork, I would turn over the page and I would come to a page where there was a red line drawn through the items. The significance of that red line was that everything above that red line we had money for and everything below that red line there was no money for. So if the next entry below the red line was something that I wanted to see happen as the chief executive of that community, I had to cut spending to eliminate something else because, you see, when I went to the city council I couldn't go to them and say: For operations, we are going to borrow a whole bunch of money. That didn't change at all when I became the Governor of the State of Nebraska.

Our constitution requires a balanced budget. It is very straightforward. It basically says: You can't spend more than what is coming in. You can't buy things you don't have money for.

Let me add another piece to this--and this makes our State quite a bit different, I think, than virtually any other State in the United States. Way back when our constitution was written, those who sat down to write the constitution--with amazing foresight--said: At some point politicians, in their passion to get reelected, are going to say to the people, they can have all of this, and then finance it by borrowing money. Well, they didn't want that. So there is literally a provision in our constitution that, in essence, says: You can't borrow any money. I think the limit is something like $100,000 or $500,000, and that is it.

If you drive across the roads in Nebraska, I will just point out, they are paid for. Why? Because we don't spend money we don't have. Our constitution will not allow us to do it. So year after year, when we get together, we look at the priorities of State. It might be education, it might be something relative to human services, it might be roads. But whatever it is, the executive branch--me, as Governor, working with the legislature--would decide what we are going to fund and at what level.

Now, I could guarantee the people of Nebraska three things would happen by the end of the legislative session: No. 1, a budget would be passed; No. 2, it would be balanced; and, No. 3, we would not borrow money for those first two things to happen. A budget would be passed, it would be balanced, and we weren't going to borrow money to make that happen. That has been going on for decades and decades and decades.

Some of my colleagues are probably ready to rush down to the floor and say: Oh, Mike, that sounds so backward. But here is what I have to say. During this very difficult economic time--and all of us agree it has been one of the toughest times since the Depression--unemployment in Nebraska has not gone over 5 percent. Unemployment today in Nebraska is 4.1 percent. Let me say that a bit differently. Ninety-six percent of people able to work in Nebraska have a job--96 percent.

This year our legislature actually recessed early and--I believe I remember this correctly--they unanimously passed the State budget. There are Democrats in the legislature, there are Republicans in the legislature, and there are Independents. One might ask: How did they do that? They did it because they felt a responsibility to the State and to their constitution to get a budget done, to make sure it was balanced, and not to borrow money to get there.

Let me contrast that with what is happening out here. What is happening out here is that for decades and decades and decades, we, as the Federal Government, have said to the people: Don't you worry. We can be all things to all people. We can give you this and we can give you that because we have this big credit card. Well, that credit card today is now at $14.5 trillion and growing--growing and growing and growing.

When I go back home and do townhall meetings, and I look across the room and I see young people or children, it pains me to tell them that I know who is going to be responsible to pay off the credit card. It is not Mike Johanns, who turns 61 this year, although it should be my responsibility;

it is going to be our children and our grandchildren who will have their own priorities, their own desires, and their own wishes. They are going to be saddled with trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars of debt before they can even address their own priorities.

I will end with this thought. What is the merit of a balanced budget amendment? Well, when I was 20 years old, our Nation owed $380 billion--$380 billion. It is projected that when I reach 65, just 4 short years from now, our Nation will owe $20 trillion. It is time to be honest with the American people. We will not solve this problem unless we put discipline in place--as our States have done; as the great State of Nebraska has done--which would essentially say, year after year, President after President, Senator after Senator, House Member after House Member, we have to live within our means.

That is what the balanced budget amendment is about. You see, without this, there will always be a way to get around it, to do something and not accept the responsibility of running this country with fiscal responsibility.

We adopted the philosophy in the State of Nebraska that we wanted to be job creators. We wanted to have that low unemployment. So we recognized it is not government that is going to create the jobs. After all, people don't want a bigger, grander, greater State government--or Federal Government, for that matter. Our responsibility was to create the right climate so a small business had an opportunity to grow and expand; that a large employer, looking across the United States for a great place to locate, would know they had an opportunity to grow and expand a business in the State of Nebraska. So we fought tooth and nail.

Let me give a current example. If we dial the clock back to about November of last year, our current Governor, David Heineman, was faced with a great challenge. He had about $1 billion he had to somehow make up to balance the budget over a 2-year cycle. For a State such as Nebraska, that is a powerful amount of money. In Washington, where we talk about trillion-dollar programs, such as the stimulus, et cetera, that may not sound like much. But it is a huge amount of money to our State.

I suppose our Governor could have said: Well, if we just hit the taxpayer here more, and hit the taxpayer there more, then all of this will balance out. But he adopted very much the opposite view--which is exactly what I expected of Governor Heineman. He said: We are going to balance the budget, and we are going to do it without raising taxes. That philosophy is absolutely right.

Families are tightening their belts, they are balancing their budgets, and they are doing everything they can. They are suffering through economic times that are tough. Why would we hit them harder? Why would we go to our families, who are already struggling, and say: I have to take more money out of your billfold and send it to the State capital?

So he led and he stepped forward and he said, Here is a plan to deliver a balanced budget. And do you know what. He didn't send somebody else to go into that room. He went himself and said this is the plan that I believe in for the future of our State. He was there through every minute, every hour, every second of the legislative session, and at the end of it, with no tax increases, they balanced the budget. I would have to check this, but if memory serves me correctly, I think that plan passed unanimously. In our State legislature we have members who are more liberal than others, more conservative; we have some who are Democrats, some who are Republicans. But do you know what. Our chief executive led. And, again, I draw a sharp contrast here.

There is one nationally elected official in our Nation, and we call him Mr. President. The President pays the filing fee and convinces the Nation that he or she is the right person to occupy that office, and there is no substitute for their leadership.

We need to have our Chief Executive, the man we call Mr. President, deliver a plan that he believes is the right direction for our country. That is the key to this issue.

I will be very clear. I like the plan of Governor Heineman. In tough times, you pull back. When the revenues are a little bit better, you can do some things and establish some new priorities. But what happens out here is there is no prioritization. It is spend on everything. Spend on everything that walks by. Some day our kids and grandkids are going to have to pay off the credit card. I don't think that is right.

Senator Sessions raises an excellent point. Having served in the executive branch pretty much exclusively until I came to the Senate 2 years ago, there is only one leader. I not only believe that the Executive--in this case, the President of the United States-- has that responsibility, but I feel very strongly that that responsibility has not been discharged.

I fully appreciate the need to go out there and drive a message and get votes and get yourself elected or reelected. That, of course, is what democracy is all about. But there is a point at which the election is over and that needs to be set aside, and there needs to be someone who can lead on behalf of the entire United States.

We are all Senators, but it is the people of Nebraska who vote for me. We only have one nationally elected official, and that is the gentleman I referred to previously who is called Mr. President. There is no substitute for that, not in our system of government. It is absolutely incumbent upon the President to lay out in terms U.S. citizens can understand what we are facing.

I will be very candid. I could not be more disappointed with the President's comments yesterday. It is his podium. He is free to talk about whatever he chooses to talk about, and he does not need the advice of Mike Johanns. But I will tell you what a great opportunity that was to talk about the dire situation of our budget and to lay out in stark detail what brings us to this situation and invite the American people to understand the difficulty we are facing and, most importantly, to put a plan out that the President stands behind.

Let me tell you what happened this year. The President put out a plan. The plan came to the floor of the Senate. It was so disregarded it did not get a single vote. It was not a serious plan. No one took it as a serious plan.

Think about that. No Republican, no Democrat, no Independent, no liberal, no conservative, no moderate said this is the right plan for the future of this great Nation; not a single one in this Senate. That is a very serious situation for our Nation.

It is time to be serious about this and present a serious proposal that makes the hard choices. Don't tell me you can solve this problem by, well, everybody is going to pay higher taxes who makes over a certain level. I did the math on that. When I first heard that I said: OK, let me understand that better. If you earn over $250,000 a year, what would the tax rate have to be for those earners just to balance the budget for that year? I am not talking about the massive amount of debt that lies in front of our children and grandchildren. Just to balance the budget that year, the tax rate would be 90 percent. It has gotten worse because our deficit has grown to $1.6 trillion--but 90 percent. Actually, I think, if I redid that math, it would be closer to 100 percent.

That may be a great political talking point. It may be tested, it may be polled, it may be a 70-percent talking point, it may be an 80- percent talking point, but I tell you what, it is not going to solve the problem this Nation faces. It is not the pathway that deals with the massive problem we have, and there is no one else who can speak to the Nation like the President of the United States.

Senator Sessions cannot, Senator Johanns cannot, Senator McConnell and Senator Reid, with all their stature, cannot either. That bully pulpit is unique to the President of the United States, and we have yet to see that responsibility met.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the balanced budget amendment.

Let me offer a thought or two as I get started today.

I had the privilege at one point in my political life to serve as the Governor of a great State, the State of Nebraska. I served in that capacity for 6 years. In that capacity, as in virtually every other State, we had a provision in our constitution, and it was not a gimmick at all. It was a very serious statement. It said, in a very straightforward way: Thou shalt have a balanced budget. It was as simple and as straightforward as that.

The other interesting thing about my State of Nebraska is that in addition to having that constitutional provision--and keep in mind, part of my oath of office, as Governor, was to uphold that constitution--but part of that was a requirement, a mandate, that we could not borrow money. In fact, I think the limitation, if I am not mistaken, was $50,000 or $100,000.

I would say to people back home, when I was Governor, that probably was a pretty handsome sum of money more than a century ago when that constitution was passed, but, in effect, today what that meant was that when we got down to the business of balancing our budget, as required by the constitution, I did not have the ability as Governor to issue bonded indebtedness to go out and borrow against the full faith and credit of my State to balance that budget.

In fact, I will tell you today, I am not even certain the State of Nebraska has a bond rating because it is unnecessary. Very simply, we followed a philosophy that we would not spend money we did not have. So we did not issue bonds to build highways. If we did not have the money in the bank and planned for where the money would come from in the years ahead--if it was a multiyear project--we did not do it. We did not build them.

Many who may be listening to this will say: Well, my goodness, how would that work? Here in this country we have $14 trillion worth of debt. Where would we be without all of that borrowing? In this last economic recession, the unemployment rate of Nebraska never rose over 5 percent. Today the unemployment rate in our State is 4.1 percent.

It never occurred to me that I should ever argue to the people of that great State that if they were successful, they should be punished for that success. Very much the opposite. I said: I want you to come to Nebraska, I want you to create your jobs here, and we are going to do everything we can to be your partner in that effort.

The current Governor has followed that same philosophy, and we often hear about those Governors who are doing a great job. I know of one; his name is Dave Heineman. He is the Governor of the State of Nebraska. He has balanced his budget, he has not borrowed money, and he has, during one of the toughest economic times since the Depression, under 5 percent. It is 4.1 percent today. He was my Lieutenant Governor.

At the national level, we did not follow that philosophy. I believe we are now at a crossroads because for decade after decade Washington has promised too much. It has said over and over again we can be all things to all people. But the real truth of it is, it never said how it planned to pay for it. The result is, we face a financial crisis unlike any financial crisis that maybe our Nation has ever seen. Do not believe my words. This is being studied by the hour, by the minute, by the second.

A recent Congressional Budget Office report confirms the assertion. Last week the CBO released its latest economic forecast. It is kind of a report of where we are headed as a nation, and it is grim by even the most liberal economic point of view.

The Congressional Budget Office now predicts that debt held by the public will exceed 100 percent of our gross domestic product by 2021, if we continue the current policies. Twelve months ago, when they released the report, it was equally as grim--well, I should not say equal because the number I have just cited got worse by 10 percent in just 12 months. Our debt is rising exponentially, exceeding 200 percent by 2037, and at that point we might as well just stop making the projection. Just think about this: Our great Nation in 25 years will have so much debt that the Congressional Budget Office cannot compute it.

Erskine Bowles has said many times before that this is a crisis that is predictable. He was one of the Chairs of the President's own deficit commission. CBO went on to say that ``growing debt also would increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis during which investors would lose confidence in the government's ability to manage its budget and the government would thereby lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates.''

It is Erskine Bowles who has said this crisis is so predictable. CBO also found that in the next 25 years, Federal health spending will increase by 50 percent as a share of GDP while Social Security spending will increase by 20 percent. What is happening is predictable.

My generation--I am right in the middle of the baby boomers--is starting to access all of the promises that have been made. It is no longer an option for us to just simply say: A little nip and a little tuck here, and we all give a little, and it all works out. There is a mountain of debt clearly ahead of us, and we can either do course corrections or, believe me, we will perish.

I have no qualms about saying that both parties made mistakes over the years. This is a bipartisan problem. But for some to advocate even more stimulus spending--which we heard in the last couple of weeks, repeating the misguided policies of the last 2 years, adding more debt on more debt on more debt--defies logic and common sense.

If stimulus spending were the answer, our economy would be firing on all cylinders today. But, unfortunately, even with that massive spending plan, that stimulus plan of $1 trillion when we add the interest, it has not yielded the results.

Remember the President's promise: We will keep unemployment under 8 percent. We just have to bite the bullet and spend all of this money. And here we are today with unemployment almost locked down at 9.1 percent. Just look at where our country was 2 years ago.

In January 2009, the debt was $10.6 trillion. I would argue that was far too much 2 years ago. Today, it is over $14.3 trillion and growing exponentially. We are talking about a 35-percent increase in our Nation's debt in 2 short years.

To put these numbers into perspective, today each U.S. citizen would have to pay $46,000 to pay off our national debt. That is $11,000 more than 2 years ago. Each American family--and I hope you are sitting down when you are listening to this--each American family would need to write a check for $127,000 just to square up the books, just to get the debt paid off. That is not even addressing the spending that is out of control today.

Looking at unemployment, in January 2009 the unemployment rate was absolutely unacceptable at 7.8 percent. Today, after almost $1 trillion of stimulus spending, unemployment has grown 17 percent, with almost 2 million more Americans who cannot find work notwithstanding their best efforts.

Maybe somebody is going to come down here and say: But there is other news you should be looking at. Well, I looked at some other news regarding health care costs. Contrary to the proponents of the health care overhaul, health insurance premiums for the average family have gone up 19 percent since 2009.

Put simply, doubling down on deficit spending has failed our economy. It has failed our American people. In fact, the President's plans have made it worse. So why would we want to repeat the same mistake? I thought raising the

$14 trillion debt limit was actually about reducing spending. Why would we arrange for a stimulus plan in order to raise the limit? Why would we be arguing for larding it up with more stimulus spending? When will we learn this hole we have dug for this great country requires us to quit digging?

There is no doubt that our debt problem is the defining issue of our time. I see two paths. We can continue to run up trillion-dollar deficits, operate the government with no budget--which has been standard fare for the last 790 days--double down on failed policy objectives that did not make any sense 2 years ago and have not improved with time, or we can be frank and candid and honest that we have promised more than our economy can afford to generate.

I have heard the arguments: Just tax those rich people some more. In fact, I spoke about that soon after I came to the Senate. There was this idea that if a person made over $250,000 a year, then they should be taxed more.

So I said: OK, if that is going to be the new mantra around here, just to balance the budget for a year, what would the effective tax rate have to be for everybody making over $250,000 just to balance the budget? I am not talking about paying off the deficit, just to do what Nebraska has done for years and years, balance the budget without borrowing money.

I spoke about this on the Senate floor. The rate would have to be 90 percent. That was 2 years ago. It is probably worse now. If does not make any sense. Is that the kind of encouragement upon which our Nation was founded? That is not a pathway to solvency; that is a pathway to destroying a great nation. Only one path will provide future generations what I grew up with, which was a land of opportunity, an America that my parents believed if you just worked hard and stayed out of trouble you could do just about anything, two dairy farmers who caused their kids to believe that they could experience greatness in this great country.

Well, let's be up front and honest about the road that we need to travel as a nation. We can get there. Our Nation has such a proud history. It has faced so many challenges. It has looked adversity in the face, and it has forced it down. Each and every time our great Nation has risen to the challenge.

So as we reflect and pay homage to the history of this great country in the days ahead, let's use this as an opportunity to work toward a solution to this challenge of our time, our debt crisis.

As the CBO report indicated:

Waiting to address the long-term budgetary imbalance and

allowing debt to mount in the meantime would make future

generations worse off--

That is your children and your grandchildren--

although some current generations could receive a benefit

from that delay.

So am I to tell my children and grandchildren, so that I can benefit from just pushing this down the road, kicking this can down the road, that my kids and grandkids will pay the price for this? They will have their own wars to fight. I wish they were not going to, but they will. They will have their own new pandemics to deal with, and on and on.

But, you see, I started my adult life with our Nation owing $380 billion. In 5 years our Nation will owe $20 trillion. It will not be canceled at my death. It will be owed by those next generations.

My hope is that we can come down here, that we can be honest about the overpromises that have occurred, that we can speak candidly about the need to put in place forever a requirement that says to every Senator who follows me that, as hard as it is, we must balance the budget. The only way we can do that is by doing what our States have historically done--including my great State--and that is what it says in the Constitution.

It is not accidental that this proposal gets so much support in our country because, to the average family, it is what they do every day. We in Washington must come to grips with this and do the same.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, over a year ago now, the President signed into law health care legislation that we are finding is certainly long on promises but short on sound policy. Unfortunately, the legislation did not follow a transparent or thorough process. Instead, it was hastily rushed through on a premise that has now become famous, as said by Speaker Pelosi: We have to pass it to see what is in it. Now, almost daily, newspapers, constituent mail, and independent reports continue to reveal that the law's promises are not reality.

Recently, the Columbus Dispatch told the story of a family with a preexisting condition. Two years ago, their struggles to find health insurance coverage outraged this administration. In fact, their hardship was specifically used as an example of why we needed to get the health care system reformed. Well, party affiliation did not define how we felt about this family. We all empathized and sympathized with their struggles and recognized the need for basic health insurance reforms. But, unfortunately, we did not harness that common ground to develop sound policy that addresses the very real problems within the health care system. Instead, a bitterly partisan bill was shoved through Congress, and now we are stuck with its consequences.

So what are the consequences for the family who struggled to get insurance? The article reports that their annual premium has increased a whopping $12,000. Clearly, one result of the law is soaring premiums. President Obama promised no fewer than 20 times that he would cut premiums by $2,500 for the average family by the end of his term. But, unfortunately, this is not an isolated story. This broken promise is evident in homes all across this great Nation. Mail from frustrated Nebraskans continues to flood my office. They question how a health care law that costs so much yet still allows skyrocketing premiums could have ever passed.

A single mother from Bellevue, NE, recently found out that her family's health care premium increased by $700 per year. Her insurance provider explained it was due to mandates in the new health care law.

She pleaded with me:

Please stand up on behalf of single moms like me. We do all

we can to hold our world together, give up time with our

children to work two jobs . . . and now this! How am I

supposed to maintain health insurance for my family?

Well, I wish I could tell constituents their premiums will not go up, as the President promised. I wish I could tell them the new health care law addressed the rising costs of health care, as the President promised it would. Instead, these stories reflect what the experts predicted would happen if the law passed. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that individual health insurance premiums would increase by an average of $2,100 per family due solely to the new mandates included in the law. That puts the gap between Candidate Obama's promise and President Obama's health care law at an alarming $4,600 per family.

The administration's own Medicare Actuary expects health care costs to increase $311 billion over the next decade under the new law. In fact, the Actuary testified that the President's promise that the health care law would lower costs was ``false, more so than true.''

Now, some may say: Mike, just wait until the law is fully implemented. That is when the promises will be fulfilled. But I continue to get reports on my desk forecasting the negative consequences of this irresponsible and shortsighted piece of legislation.

For example, one of the law's major flaws is that about half of its new health insurance coverage is achieved by locking millions of more people on an already-broken Medicaid system.

Yet the New England Journal of Medicine recently released a study showing those on Medicaid struggle to find doctors to treat them.

The medical journal's research revealed that 66 percent of individuals who mentioned Medicaid's Children Health Insurance Program when calling to schedule a medical appointment were denied an appointment for the child.

That is compared to only 11 percent who said they had private insurance.

That is right--those on Medicaid's CHIP were six times more likely to be denied treatment.

And when Medicaid was accepted, the children had to wait, on average, 22 days longer than those with private insurance.

Researchers blame low Medicaid payments, delays in paying, and bureaucratic redtape driving doctors from even accepting these patients.

As a former Governor, I can tell you that these problems have long plagued the Medicaid Program.

Yet in 2014 the President's new law dramatically expands Medicaid, dumping over 24 million more Americans onto this very broken system. How can the President promise guaranteed coverage for these millions of Americans when this study shows the majority of our most vulnerable population is denied treatment under the Medicaid system? The bottom line is you cannot receive care if you cannot find a doctor to provide it. The logic simply does not match the promise.

Another recent study by the consulting group McKinsey & Company calls another one of the President's guarantees into question. Their study analyzed the impact of the health care law on employer-sponsored benefits.

Prior to the health care law, America's employers were the backbone of our Nation's health care system, providing 165 million Americans with health care coverage. The McKinsey study found that 30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering their employees health care insurance after 2014.

During the health care debate, supporters of the law insisted that the law builds on the principle of employer-sponsored coverage.

The President even repeatedly promised if you like your plan, you can keep it. But again, this appears to be an empty promise.

According to the study--and others that came before it--employees will be stripped of plans that they like and dumped onto the new law's health care exchanges to fend for themselves.

I realize there is some disagreement surrounding this particular study. But how can we deny this commonsense logic?

The more you know about this law, the more you conclude it just does not make sense for employers to offer a health care plan.

Beginning in 2014, the health care law mandates that employers with more than 50 workers offer health insurance coverage or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker. And with this mandate comes a slew of other requirements. Suddenly dropping coverage and paying the $2,000 penalty becomes an economic necessity.

During the health care debate, I spoke about this on the Senate floor. I and many others warned that the proposed penalties for businesses would create a perverse incentive. When you do the math, I said back then this is no penalty at all, compared to the cost of private insurance.

It is a wise business decision if you are worried about the bottom line. That is how the law encourages employers to dump their employees onto the exchange.

A Deloitte consultant told the Associated Press, ``I don't know if the intent was to find an exit strategy for providing benefits, but the bill as written provides the mechanism.'' John Deere has responded by saying businesses will look into ``just paying the

fine.'' Not surprisingly, employers have done their own math. AT&T reported that its $2.4 billion cost of coverage would drop to $600 million for the penalties. Estimates reveal Caterpillar could save 70 percent on health care costs by eliminating coverage and paying the penalties. And the list goes on.

Prior to its passage, the Congressional Budget Office predicted 7 percent of employers would drop insurance coverage due to the health care law. Now studies and business logic are challenging that estimate. This may mean the CBO's projected cost of the health care law may be significantly too low.

That is right--the $2.6 trillion cost estimate for the health care law could be surprisingly too low. The President promised that this bill would lift the burden off the middle class. Not only will they see their premiums continue to increase due to out-of-control health care costs, but they will foot the cost of the new exchanges.

Unfortunately, time is confirming what we have been predicting all along. The case for repeal of the health care law grows stronger every day. I will work to overturn these negative consequences. I believe Americans deserve better. They deserve promises that we can keep.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I wish to start out thanking my colleague from South Dakota. He has been a very reasoned voice on this issue, and he has brought forward some ideas that I believe are the right approach to dealing with ethanol. If you think about it, about 50 percent of our oil is now imported from another part of the world. The more dramatic piece of that is that oftentimes the importation of that oil comes from parts of the world that do not share our philosophy, do not share our view of the world, are not democracies, and do everything they can to, in effect, fight against what we believe in. So not only are we dependent on foreign oil, we are dependent on a source of foreign oil that oftentimes is contrary to the values and beliefs of American citizens.

One of these days, I think we are going to learn the lesson of that dependency, and we are going to alter our course. We are going to do a whole host of things that make sense: more drilling, more exploration, more nuclear power plants, as Senator Lamar Alexander has advocated for, and just everything on the list. It is all a piece of the puzzle.

A piece of that puzzle is also renewable fuels. It could be biodiesel, it could be ethanol, it could be cellulosic ethanol, which I championed when I was Secretary of Agriculture. Again, I think it is going to be a whole host of things.

Ten or twenty years ago, if I were on the Senate floor making those statements, many would have looked at me and said: Well, Mike, that is just a pipedream. But as the Senator from South Dakota points out, 10 percent of our fuel in the United States is now ethanol--10 percent. It did displace 445 million barrels of oil last year. There is nothing else going on out there that has had that kind of impact. We can report that $34 billion was kept in the U.S. economy. We often hear about this massive transfer of wealth that is occurring by us sending our hard- earned dollars to other parts of the world--again, parts of the world that do not share our values. In this case, with this product, we kept $34 billion here. At least one study indicates the average family saved $800 a year because of this. Our gas prices are about 89 cents lower per gallon than they otherwise would have been. Those are real savings to people who are out there trying to figure out how to pay for filling the tank.

Many years ago, when I was Governor of Nebraska, we took a long, hard look at our State. We wanted to know how we might best diversify our economy. Some of the things we did worked. I am very pleased to report our unemployment rate during this time never got over 5 percent. Today it is about 4.2 percent. I am also pleased to tell you we balanced the budget. We did not borrow money to do it. One of the things we did was we said: Look, ethanol is a piece of this puzzle in Nebraska, and so we actually created State programs to try to encourage the construction of ethanol plants.

I will tell you, at the time I was Governor, I thought maybe two plants would be built. Well, the marketplace responded and we built a number of plants. Today, Nebraska is the second largest producer of ethanol. We have 24 plants in the State. Those 24 plants produce 2 billion gallons per year, $4 billion of capital investment. It directly employs 1,300 Nebraskans in high-quality jobs. It also does some great things for our livestock sector because our cattle industry--well, they buy the distiller grains. They have real value if you are feeding cattle, which we do a lot in our State.

We have recognized in Nebraska, and I think across the country, that it is time to move to the next step when it comes to ethanol production. That is why I was pleased to sign on to Senator

Grassley's bill when he introduced it. I was also pleased to work with Senator Thune who has provided such excellent leadership in this area. Basically, what this plan does is it says: Let us take a thoughtful, measured approach. Let's not jeopardize someone's situation and cause them to pay higher fuel prices at the pump because we did something in a rash and hasty sort of way. It also helps to pay off some of the deficit. We are literally saying: OK, if we are going to make some changes, we will make a contribution to deficit reduction.

Well, let me wrap up my comments and say: Senator Thune's approach is the right approach. It is an approach that says: Look, we are not going to take this industry, which has become such an important part of our energy strategy, and walk it off the cliff and just see how it lands. Instead, what we are going to do is, we are going to take a measured approach. We are going to build the infrastructure necessary. We are going to add some money to reduce the deficit, and we are not going to jeopardize somebody's price at the pump. It is already expensive enough. I am very pleased to support that approach. My hope is that our colleagues will listen to this approach, get behind it, and support it because it is the right approach. It is the right approach for Nebraska, but it is the right approach for the country.

With that, I thank the Senator from South Dakota for his help.

I yield the floor to him.

Mr. President, that is an excellent point. When I was Secretary of Agriculture, this whole debate started about food versus fuel. It was almost like there was this impression that you took that bushel of corn, you somehow burned it up to create ethanol, and that is all you got out of it. Then there was this big debate about whether that was worth it. As the Senator from South Dakota points out, a whole different process is occurring.

So in our State, it is not just the dried distiller grains because to dry them down takes some energy. We have the cattle yards in close proximity to the ethanol plants. So they buy the wet mash, which is what we call it. They ship it over, they feed it immediately, and it is a wonderful product to feed to cattle.

When we think about the approach the Senator from South Dakota has come up with, we realize it hits on all cylinders. It does reform the ethanol tax credit. Again, I believe the industry has come to the conclusion that is a thoughtful, reasonable step.

No. 2, it invests in the blender pumps. One of the challenges I had for a long time was with the flex-fuel vehicle. I am in the State that is the second largest producer of ethanol. Yet I could not get the E-85 unless we really went out and searched for it. What if we had a pump where I could literally pull up to it and dial it up to E-85 and put that in my vehicle? So it invests in the blender pumps.

It extends cellulosic tax credits for the small producers. Here is what I would say: The next generation is not going to be just corn- based ethanol. That will be a part of the picture, but I believe we will see the day--and we are already seeing the day--where we will have a cellulosic product converted into ethanol.

Then, finally, $1 billion is added to deficit reduction. The ethanol industry is saying: Look, we agree we need to do our share. We agree we need to start on this process of phasing this out.

So I think the Senator from South Dakota has hit all the right points. It does not take this industry and drop it off the cliff. It is a thoughtful, measured approach to dealing with this issue.

Again, I thank the Senator from South Dakota for his leadership, and I yield to him.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about something that is on the minds of our agricultural producers. In meetings in my home State, across Nebraska, it seems the first question is always going to be or the second question is always going to be something related to the EPA. Most of the time, the question goes like this: What is going on at the EPA? Why are they trying to put me out of business?

In response to this growing concern, which I am confident the EPA has heard, they have taken to the road with a good old-fashioned charm offensive. The problem is, what the EPA is selling publicly to farmers and ranchers--what they are trying to sell--just doesn't match up with reality. They say one thing on the road while the regulatory train just continues to barrel forward, right here in Washington. In fact, the EPA Administrator is touring the country, community after community, saying not to worry; there is no need for ``. . . fear in rural areas that EPA is coming after you.'' Yet the regulations continue to come after our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and small businesses, and those regulations are coming fast and furious. Even the Regional Administrator with responsibility for Nebraska and Iowa and Kansas and Missouri has joined the charm offensive. In a recent speech to the Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City, he has said that he does not ``see where this administration is doing anything new.''

But, quite simply, the EPA's charming rhetoric does not match up with its rule-by-rule intent. If I might, let me illustrate what I mean. Let's talk about dust--not the stuff you find on your bookshelf but the stuff a truck kicks up or a tractor kicks up when it is going down a field or farm lane. Earlier this year a bipartisan group of 33 Senators wrote to the EPA. We were worried. We were worried that the EPA had plans to regulate farm dust. Don't get me wrong. Clean air is a good thing. We need clean air, but dust is also unavoidable in farm country. Farming without kicking up dust is like asking a carpenter to cut and frame a house without creating sawdust. Well, it just doesn't happen. The two things do not go together. Not to worry, says the EPA, message No. 1 in the charm offensive; the EPA does not have any plans to do anything as silly as regulating farm dust. In fact, on March 10, Administrator Jackson noted that EPA has, and I am quoting, ``no plans to do so.'' He went on to explain:

EPA staff is conducting meetings to engage with and listen

to farmers and ranchers well before we propose any rule.

My goodness, that sounds reasonable. Well, except that the response letter that the 33 Senators received from the EPA contained an entirely different story. That letter, written by Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy, simply said that the source of the dust does not matter and that EPA cannot consider costs when it sets the standard.

Here is how she put it: National air quality standards ``are not focused on any specific category of sources or any activity including activities related to agriculture or rural roads.''

McCarthy further noted that ``the Agency is prohibited from considering costs.'' The letter leaves my Nebraska producers and producers all across this great Nation wondering, what happened? What happened to the EPA Administrator saying she wasn't going to regulate farm dust? This letter sends the exact opposite message. The answer is there is a public relations effort, and then there is a whole separate effort called the charm offensive effort, and then there is regulatory reality.

Here are some more examples. On water quality, on April 20, the Des Moines Register headline blared message No. 2 of EPA's charm offensive: ``EPA chief has no plans to regulate farm runoff.''

Well, EPA was addressing another worry in the farm community that EPA would shift from the current State-based approach to a more heavyhanded ``Federal Government knows best'' approach. It will be our-way-or-the- highway Federal Government type approach.

So, again, after reading the headline, farmers and ranchers hoped that maybe the EPA was taking a turn for the more reasonable. But a March 16 letter from EPA to their regional offices once again tells a very different story. The letter lays out a very specific framework how EPA wants States to regulate runoff. While the headline says the EPA will not initiate regulation of farm runoff, in reality they are aggressively prodding States to do it for them.

If that weren't enough, the agency is also trying to expand their authority literally to every irrigation ditch, every low-lying area, and they even want to regulate your farm pond. The law is very clear that EPA does not have authority over these waters. After

Congress refused to enact this expansion of their authority, the EPA decided, well, let's plow ahead anyway regardless of congressional intent. Does that sound familiar with this administration?

To make matters worse, they are not doing this through a full rulemaking process with those pesky public comments and such. Instead, the EPA sat down with the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Interior, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and issued a so- called guidance document. That happened in May. EPA claims this approach includes exemptions for agriculture, but the whole story is not told.

Instead, it says irrigated areas, stock tanks, and low-lying areas are ``generally not waters of the U.S.'' Generally? What do you mean by generally? Well, that word ``generally'' produces a tremendous amount of uncertainty. It creates fear. It creates confusion and gives farmers and ranchers zero peace of mind. You see, they do not trust the EPA.

Further, the guidance shifts the burden of proving exemption from regulation to our producers. Instead of EPA or State regulators being forced to explain why on Earth agricultural producers should be subjected to such regulations, producers will now have to explain why it is ridiculous to regulate their stock tanks in irrigated areas under runoff regulations. This will result, of course, in increased permitting costs, paperwork, and other redtape, and it is far from farmer friendly.

Yet the FDA exemptions for agriculture do not end there. Let us not forget EPA's backdoor energy tax where EPA is promising farms and ranches an exemption. EPA is once again lulling farmers to complacency by sending this message: do not worry; we are not going to force you to buy permits. To quote the EPA Administrator, ``EPA is proposing reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a responsible, careful manner and we have even exempted agricultural sources from regulation.''

Producers, quite justifiably, heard the words ``exempted agriculture'' and may have thought: we are going to be OK here. The reality is far different and very definitely a course has been set that should concern every single farmer, rancher, small business person in this great Nation.

The American Farm Bureau put it best in testimony to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I am quoting:

Any costs incurred by utilities, refiners, manufacturers to

comply with the greenhouse gas regulatory requirements will

be passed on to the consumers of these products including

farmers and ranchers. As a result, our Nation's farmers and

ranchers will have higher input costs--namely fuel and energy

costs--to grow food and fiber and fuel for our Nation and the

world.

So picture this: A Nebraska farmer gets the electric bill, calls up the power company and says, whoa, wait a minute here. EPA told me its climate change efforts were not going to target me. In fact, they said I was exempted. So why am I paying so much more?

Unfortunately, they are going to have the same conversation with the diesel supplier, their fertilizer retailer, and the local gas station where they fill up the pickup and truck.

The EPA promise of exemption will, unfortunately, meet the reality of dramatic increases in input costs. EPA's reassuring words about an exemption will turn out to be absolutely empty, misleading, and absolutely 100 percent unhelpful when the electricity and diesel bill come due. But the public relations effort and charm offensive marches on. It even includes an Executive order titled ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' issued by the President in January. Isn't that enticing?

The directive instructs each Federal agency to consider ``how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient or excessively burdensome.''

According to the order, ``our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness and job creation.''

My goodness, that is all of the right words. Once again, it sounded as though we are headed in the right direction. But then, in April, an EPA official stated that the Agency--this is remarkable--the Agency was unaffected by the President's Executive order because they do not propose rules where costs exceed the benefits. However, the same official admitted that the Agency does not consider direct job impacts in its economic analysis. Can anybody figure that out?

These two statements obviously conflict. EPA's actions in drafting several of these costly, excessive burdensome regulations fail to meet the goals of the Executive order issued by the President of the United States, but their public relations campaign speeds forward.

Back home in Nebraska, as in other States in this great country, we make agreements on a handshake, because we believe if you shake somebody's hand, you can trust them. That is the way it works. Unfortunately, within the bureaucratic walls of the EPA, that is not the case. Instead of spouting charming verbiage about the benefits of increased regulation, EPA should be looking for ways to work with farmers and ranchers and small businesses to find solutions to environmental challenges while creating jobs for Americans who are out of work.

After all, the men and women who depend on the land to feed their own families and to feed us are responsible stewards of the environment. Unfortunately, based on what we have seen over the past couple of years, EPA used agricultural producers as offenders, not partners. EPA's shift into campaign mode to appear farmer friendly is disingenuous. They rolled out this charm offensive to make it sound as though they were farmer friendly.

Let me wrap up by saying, why not just do it? Be job friendly, farmer friendly, agriculture friendly.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

The ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE. The Senator from Alabama.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about the proposed Medicare reform. I have found the debate to be fascinating because it is proceeding as if there had been no changes to Medicare recently. Anyone telling you that there have been no changes is not being straightforward. Sweeping changes to our Medicare system were debated and they were passed in the most partisan way possible--only Democrats voted for them--and they were signed into law by President Obama. The President's new law already puts this fundamental health care program in significant jeopardy.

Some may come down to the floor, some may rise and say: Mike, you are all wrong about this. They will want you to believe that the $\1/2\ trillion in cuts to Medicare in the new health care law will actually extend the Medicare program. But in reality the health care law is not giving new life to this program at all. The Congressional Budget Office reports that Medicare will be insolvent in 2020, 9 years from now. Yes, that is right, complete insolvency in 9 years. That is the current plan voted on and signed into law by the President.

That analysis does not even account for the $\1/2\ trillion cuts in Medicare to fund the health care law.

Don't believe me? We have consulted the experts. The experts say the health care law counts, or attempts to count, the same dollar twice. The Medicare Actuary says these cuts ``cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions under the health care law) and to extend the trust fund.''

This can only mean either the new health care law does not have enough funding, to the tune of $\1/2\ trillion or, in the alternative, Medicare is in more serious jeopardy than even the trustees' report points out, in jeopardy of becoming insolvent much sooner than the experts predict.

So I stand here today and I tell you if you are 56 years old or younger and you are thinking about the day when you apply for your Medicare benefits, the experts say--sorry, you are out of luck. Under the current law of the land, that is the case. Again I point out that the President's health care reform was passed on the most partisan of votes--it did not get a single Republican vote--and every Medicare beneficiary will be impacted by the cuts to this program.

If you are out there saying: Mike, I want to protect the poor, all I can tell you is the President's plan does not do that. If you are saying: But, Mike, I want to protect the middle class, all I can tell you is that the President's plan does not do that.

What do we get out of that? According to the Congressional Budget Office, complete insolvency in 9 years. You see, the President's reform is founded upon the unrealistic assumption that doctors will continue providing the same services to patients with a 30-percent cut in a Medicare Program that is not covering their costs today. I just had doctors in my office saying: Mike, we cannot continue to provide Medicare services if that cut occurs. Yet that is the current law of the land.

By comparison, one of the plans we may vote on this week protects Medicare beneficiaries over 55 by saying: Look, we are going to hold you harmless. Your benefits will not be changed at all. The plan says let's fix this physician payment formula so they do not have the 30- percent cut so access for Medicare patients can continue. The plan says let's protect those who are especially deserving of our support, those who are below 150 percent of the poverty level and truly cannot afford the health care they need.

You are probably saying: Mike, what plan is that? The plan I am talking about is Paul Ryan's plan. You tell me which sounds more severe in its approach, a plan that puts government bureaucrats in charge of controlling health care costs, robs Medicare of any potential savings to start a new entitlement, and in 9 years brings bankruptcy to Medicare, or a plan that empowers patients to choose their own unique plan, ensures Medicare savings are reinvested into the Medicare Program, and preserves Medicare by bringing costs back to sustainable levels, which is the Ryan plan?

I want to be clear that there are some things about this plan I would love to debate and change. For example, perhaps we could devise an incremental transition within the Medicare proposal. Maybe we need to evaluate if the medical savings accounts for those most in need should be indexed to something better than the general inflation rate. Maybe those below a severe poverty line should be exempted entirely. Perhaps some of the tax reform, including elimination of certain tax deductions, needs to be revisited.

We will have the opportunity to debate and make improvements, but only if we vote to proceed to the bill. But you know what, arms are going to be broken all over the place here this week to make sure that does not happen, because this is not a serious attempt to try to fix the problem. This is all about messaging for campaigns and political consequences. The reality is no plan is going to get enough votes. I will stand here and I will observe those arms getting broken. We will need orthopedic surgeons on the Senate floor to fix them.

Sadly, passage was never the intention here. These plans were scheduled for votes purely for the sake of messaging an important program that provides health care for seniors that by the Congressional Budget Office's definition will be insolvent in 9 short years. These votes are not designed to fix this problem. These votes, I guarantee, are all about political fodder for next year's election season.

I believe this is not what we were elected to do on the Senate floor. These antics are what rightfully embolden those who say Congress is incapable of solving these very hard problems. As the Senator from South Dakota indicated, today we mark 756 days since the Senate passed a budget. As a former Governor I cannot imagine going to the people of the great State of Nebraska and saying: You know, I have been thinking about it, we will not be doing a budget this year. I would be looking for a new State to live in.

Well, 756 days, and this week we are not even making a serious attempt to deal with it. With a deficit exceeding $14 trillion, our Nation needs something greater than political symbolic votes which we all know will fail. Maybe, just maybe, we can muster the courage to take seriously our responsibility to seniors and to all Americans.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon during World Trade Week to urge President Obama to submit pending free-trade agreements: Korea, Panama, and Colombia. I hope this is the last time I come to the floor on this issue until we are actually debating these job-creating agreements, but I must admit I feel as though I am holding my breath.

Mr. President, 1,420 days have passed since the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement was signed; 1,422 days have passed since we signed an agreement with Panama, and it has been 1,640 days since we completed negotiations with our close ally, Colombia.

We have heard the administration tout the job-creating benefits of the agreements, so why more roadblocks? Our unemployment rate is nearly 10 percent. Our workers deserve a consistent message on job creation from this administration. It has been over a month since President Obama and the President of Colombia made an announcement. The announcement was that negotiations had been completed, I might add, yet again. I was relieved that President Obama finally announced there was an agreement and that there was a need to complete the long overdue agreement.

I am confident the agreement brought to the Senate and the House would finally win bipartisan support, and I still am today. In fact, over a month ago, in the Wall Street Journal, my colleagues, Senators Baucus and Kerry, called for Congress to ``restore a broadly-shared bipartisan consensus on trade.'' Now the administration seems to be moving the goalposts, suggesting continued delay. They are trying to hold up these agreements to force us to make spending increases that were contained in the ill-fated economic stimulus bill.

During the challenging economic times that our Nation has endured, we should all be doing all we can to exert every single ounce of energy to get our economy moving again and create jobs. This is not done by heavyhanded government, massive new spending, and new entitlements when our current programs are unsustainable. It is accomplished by lowering and removing barriers to our job creators so they can flourish. Korea, Panama, and Colombia all have much higher barriers to our exports than we have to their imports. These three bipartisan votes should have been near the top of the agenda 2 years ago. By now we should be voting on new agreements that this administration has negotiated, not the leftovers from the previous administration.

We will need an even greater focus on leveling the playing field through trade agreements if we are going to double our exports in the next 5 years, which is the goal the President has set. Yet the administration, claiming that reopening negotiations with Korea, Colombia, and Panama was necessary, continues to talk through these agreements. I am not saying every single agreement before us, or hopefully before us, is perfect. No agreement ever is. However, let's not forget that these agreements were originally negotiated in good faith between allies. What does this delay do to our reputation as a reliable negotiating partner?

Back where I come from in Nebraska, a lot of business is still done with a handshake. We trust our neighbors because they are good people with good values. But if one makes a deal with someone and shakes on the deal and they keep changing the terms or delaying the followthrough, one tends to stop dealing with those people. I sure hope that does not happen to us.

The fastest growing opportunities for American businesses, farms, and ranches are outside of our borders. Our greatest opportunities are overseas in rapidly developing countries. I fear that these long delays have hurt our ability, the ability of our government to negotiate high- quality trade agreements. But, most importantly, it has hurt the ability of Americans to compete in these growing marketplaces.

Let's not pretend this delay has not cost American workers. Since the Colombia agreement was initially signed all those days ago, our businesses and our agricultural producers have paid nearly $3.5 billion in tariffs for goods exported. That is enormous, especially when we consider that the U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that an American job is supported for every $166,000 in exports.

Instead of wasting money on tariff payments, the U.S. manufacturing and agricultural sectors could have spent billions of dollars creating jobs at home.

I hope we can soon get past the continued delays and the administration can signal to us that they are serious about doubling exports in 5 years.

On July 1, less than 2 months away from now, the trade agreement between the European Union and South Korea goes into effect. It is also the date that the FTA between Canada and Colombia goes into effect. The negotiators for other countries are watching the United States, and they have seen a lack of trade policy. They have seen a change here, and they are doing everything they can to fill that vacuum with negotiated and approved agreements. Now our exporters will face even greater competition when our trade agreements are approved, and hopefully they will be.

The President said it very well in his State of the Union Address:

If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign

trade agreements, we will lose the chance to create jobs on

our shores.

That is exactly what is happening. I will give one example. In 2007 American wheat farmers supplied Colombia with almost 70 percent of the wheat market, even though they faced tariffs of 10 to 35 percent. By 2010 our wheat farmers' share of the market had dropped to 46 percent. Where did that business go?

Meanwhile, Canada's share grew from 24 to 33 percent. That percentage will skyrocket when Canadian farmers can export their products duty free on July 1. Our wheat farmers may effectively be shut out of a market that they dominated at one point in time.

Americans who are out of work know firsthand that an opportunity is being missed. Nebraska farmers, businesses, workers, those across the country know we can compete with anyone given a level playing field. After the absence of leadership on trade in Washington during the last 2 years, though, the job of competing is harder and harder.

In proclaiming this week as World Trade Week, the President noted the connection between the global economy and prosperity in our own country. ``To ensure our success,'' he called for ``a robust, forward- looking trade agenda that emphasizes exports and domestic job growth.'' It is disappointing that the positive steps forward we have seen over the past few months have slowed in recent days, and we just cannot afford more setbacks.

I look forward to working with the administration over the next 2 years on forward-looking trade efforts. Real progress forward would produce great opportunity in our country, but we have to get this work done first. Therefore, it is my hope that the President will bring to us, without delay, the Korea, Panama, and Colombia Trade Agreements for us to vote yes.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise to discuss our Nation's energy policy. I was very disappointed by last night's vote. Actually, as one of my colleagues pointed out, it was more political theater instead of a serious attempt at addressing this Nation's energy needs.

Instead of investing time on votes that will not bring gas prices down, we need to do what Americans expect us

to do; that is, adopt a careful, all-inclusive, comprehensive approach. Put simply, we need to consider our assets and we need to develop those assets in a responsible way. That sounds very simple to the average person but, unfortunately, it seems to allude us here.

Last night's vote on a narrow tax issue, that in a very bipartisan way was recognized not to reduce the price of gas, doesn't get us headed in the right direction. If anything, it was a step backward. So I wish to take a more serious look at the energy resources we have in the United States to lay the foundation for the argument that we need to develop these resources--energy that could help address our Nation's security as well as our economic security.

Unfortunately, we are a victim of misperception that somehow the United States is running out of energy and that our own resources are not sufficient. But that is not true. In fact, the data tells us that the United States can be a dominant energy power. Let me say that again. The United States can be a dominant energy player--a power--in the global marketplace. With the proper Federal policies in place, the United States can step into a dominating position.

This isn't something I dreamed up last night. This is not something Mike Johanns just invented. This comes directly from the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress.

So let's go through what the CRS said to us in a recent report. They say the United States is No. 3 in global oil production. In 2009, the United States produced about 9.1 million barrels per day. By comparison, Saudi Arabia produced about 500,000 more than the United States per day at 9.8 million, and Russia leads all countries at 9.9 million barrels per day. So today we are No. 3 in global production of oil, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia.

For an additional perspective, consider this: The United States produces more than double what Iran produces and produces more than Iran and China combined.

Looking beyond oil production, let's consider our existing assets. According to the CRS, the United States has 163 billion barrels of oil that is technically recoverable. That is a lot, and that is more than six times what the administration suggests in its favorite talking points.

Let's compare our oil assets to what we import from Saudi Arabia, a major U.S. supplier. In 2009, we imported about 1 million barrels per day from Saudi Arabia, for a total of 365 million barrels per year. So every 3 years, at 2009 import rates, we will import just over 1 billion barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia. So the United States has enough oil to entirely replace imports from Saudi Arabia for a long time--more than 400 years.

If we shift the focus to natural gas, the United States has enough natural gas reserves to meet U.S. demand for 90 years.

Let's turn to coal. Again, based on CRS analysis, our domestic coal resources are huge. In fact, the United States is No. 1 in world coal resources. The United States has 28 percent of the world's coal. American recoverable coal reserves are 262 billion tons of coal.

To put that in perspective, the United States consumes about 1.2 billion short tons per year--simply extraordinary. What I am saying is, that is over 200 years' worth.

Then, CRS did something else interesting. They consolidated the energy resources, and then ranked the United States against the rest of the world. The United States came in at No. 1. This does not include oil shale or methane hydrates.

CRS concluded that total fossil fuels within the United States, in barrels of oil equivalent, are 972.6 billion.

So considering the United States leads the world in total energy resources, we need to evaluate any energy policy on whether it makes strides to use those resources in a responsible way or whether it keeps those resources on the sidelines.

The Congressional Research Service has debunked the myth that we are energy poor, that we have somehow consumed our resources. In fact, our Nation is No. 1. We are rich with resources: oil, natural gas, coal, and other resources--and lots of it.

Yet the President, for whatever reason, keeps using a dramatically different talking point, and it creates the wrong impression. Just recently, on May 6, 2011, he said:

The challenge is we've got about two to three percent of

the world's oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world's

oil.

The impression I think he is trying to create is that we have virtually no reserves. Yet we are trying to grab all the resources. This statement seriously, if not intentionally, underestimates America's energy resources because it only relies upon proven reserves. That would be like a millionaire complaining he cannot afford a $10 dinner because he has only $5 in his pocket.

Here is what CRS says about proven reserves:

Proved reserves are oil, natural gas, or coal that have

been discovered and defined, typically by drilling wells or

other exploratory measures.

In other words, unless you drill or otherwise explore, proven reserves never expand and our country stays neutral.

So the President's talking point completely ignores what they call undiscovered technically recoverable--the estimated American resources in those areas where exploration has not yet occurred. Thus, it is no surprise what happens when we do not issue permits to explore and drill. Proven reserves would never expand if you did not issue the permits.

That is the problem with this administration's approach to energy policy. They have gone out of their way to oppose utilization of American energy sources and then they claim that somehow we have used them up.

Most famously, the administration supported a national energy tax called cap and trade--a bill that was intentionally designed to increase costs for consumers on everything from oil to gasoline we put in our cars, to coal, to the electricity we use. In fact, the President even admitted his policy was designed to make the prices for American consumers ``necessarily sky-rocket.'' Unfortunately, if not remarkably, if not completely unbelievably, that is a direct quote.

I ask unanimous consent that I may have an additional 3 minutes.

Today, even after this policy has been repudiated on a bipartisan basis by Congress, the administration continues to march ahead with similar proposals at the administrative level.

The administration has canceled leases across the Rocky Mountain West. They have blocked permits in the Gulf of Mexico. They have blocked permits in Alaska.

While the President's announcement this weekend would appear to be a welcome recognition that oil and gas leasing matters, it disregards the virtual lack of permits to explore. No doubt, leasing is necessary, but if you do not have the permits, leasing means nothing. Supply stays the same, world demand continues to increase, and no one should be surprised by the economics.

No one should be surprised that this administration's policy has a direct correlation to the price of gasoline you pump into your vehicle. That is why today we are debating legislation that is enormously important. This bill requires the issuance of permits. It emphasizes safety and environmental responsibility. It does require spill response and containment plans, and it requires we do everything we can to try to improve supply. It says we can develop our natural resources expeditiously but in a responsible and prudent way. It is a responsible step in the right direction.

Let me put this another way: We, the United States, do not need to beg the rest of the world for energy resources. We do not have to go with cup in hand. Energy is too important to our growth, to job creation. It is too big an issue to outsource to another country, especially to countries that do not like our policies.

It is critical we get energy policy right. Gasoline prices are now over $4 a gallon. That is hurting every American. It is hurting job creation. Heating

and cooling bills are going up. Farmers see their fertilizer, their natural gas bills expand. Their input costs are going through the roof.

Our people deserve better, and that is why I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to remember a fallen hero, U.S. Army SPC Joseph Cemper. Specialist Cemper was based in eastern Afghanistan, in the area east of Kabul bordering Pakistan. This area is one of the areas where the fighting in the Afghan war has been the most intense.

Specialist Cemper was serving with the 101st Special Troops Battalion of the 101st Airborne Division, one of the Army's most elite units. He and four fellow American soldiers were killed in a suicide attack that ultimately took 10 lives.

Specialist Cemper had a long desire to serve his country, and was rightfully proud of his commitment to defend and to protect.

He is mourned by his parents, three sisters, two brothers, a fiancee, and an infant son Liam. I know his family is proud of him, and will always remember his spirit, enthusiasm, competitiveness, and can-do attitude. They are the

type of American family that constitute the pillars of our Armed Forces, and are the reason our Nation remains safe from its enemies.

Joseph's father, SFC Eugene Cemper, has made service to the Army his life's work. As an Army recruiter, Sergeant Cemper had the unique experience of personally recruiting his son into the Army.

As a father and a leader, Sergeant Cemper inspired both Specialist Cemper and his younger brother, PFC Noah Cemper, to wear the uniform of an American soldier with pride.

The Cemper family laid their son to rest in Papillion, NE, on April 29, 2011. Specialist Cemper returned to his birthplace with valor and honor having been awarded both the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star Medals.

I know I speak for all Nebraskans, and all Americans, when I say that despite our sorrow, we are deeply honored to have him.

I cannot imagine the pain the Cemper family is suffering today. The loss unexpectedly of a son in combat is one of the most extreme trials a parent or loved one could face. I know, at this point, my words cannot ease their hurt.

So I will end this tribute by saying what Specialist Cemper held close to his heart, so close that his family has inscribed it in a scrapbook which will one day be seen by his son. It reads:

When I stand before God at the end of my life, I hope that

I would not have a single bit of talent left, and I could say

that I used everything you gave me.

I hope he rests knowing that he died the bravest and most honorable death an American could. May God bless the Cemper family, their father and son still serving in the Armed Forces, and all our fighting men and women in harm's way.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the budget issues we are facing, the continuing resolution--all the issues that have been talked about over the last week or so. Oftentimes when I speak on the Senate floor, I talk about what it is like back home in

Nebraska. I do so because I am enormously proud of my State. It just seems our State does so many things right. Again today I am going to take a moment or two to get started and talk a little bit about that and my experience in dealing with budget issues.

I had the great honor at one point to serve a couple terms as mayor of a great city, the community of Lincoln, NE. It was a strong mayoral form of government. Each year I would have the responsibility of preparing a budget and submitting it to a seven-person city council that would take it apart and put it back together. I would work with them to get a budget done.

It never occurred to me that as mayor of that city I had the ability not to do a budget. I cannot imagine walking into a state of the city address and saying to the good people of Lincoln that after giving it some thought, I decided that it was going to be a situation where I would not be submitting a budget for consideration of the city council. It just never occurred to me.

I look at that community today led by a mayor who is very capable. It happens to be of the other political party than I am. That community has the lowest unemployment rate of any community in the United States. Why? Because people take a pretty conservative view of things. In fact, in preparing that budget, we would literally go item by item, police cars, police salaries, fire engines, whatever, and literally list them item by item and then the amount. At some point there would be a line drawn through the page where we had spent all of the money we had, all of the money available that year was spent. Everything below that line was not funded. If I went below that line or a council member did and said: We want more done here, we want to fund that item, then we had to go above the line and find the money in another program or we had to raise taxes. Those were the choices we had.

After that, I had the great honor of serving the State of Nebraska as its Governor for two terms. Actually, the budget process did not differ that much. Each year as Governor I would submit at the start of the year a budget to our Nebraska unicameral. I would deliver a state of the State address where I would talk about priorities or budget issues, whatever I chose to talk about as Governor.

There were three things I could guarantee the citizens each year: No. 1, that a budget would be submitted and it would be approved; No. 2, we would not borrow any money--any money--to balance that budget because our constitution essentially prohibits elected officials at the State level from borrowing money; and No. 3 was that the budget would, in fact, be balanced.

We did not have the option of going out to the bond market and issuing debt to mask the lack of discipline to get the spending under control. We, again, had just a few choices: Choice No. 1 was we could cut spending; choice No. 2 was we could raise taxes; and choice No. 3 was we could do some of both. I always favored the cut spending piece because if revenues were down, it told me that people were earning less and they were spending less, and because of that, less money was coming into the State treasury. Why should I as Governor go out and beat them up some more by raising their taxes?

I, as you know, spent a 3-year period of time as Secretary of Agriculture. I was given a budget by the Congress, and it never occurred to me I should spend more than what was allocated to me. I would always tell my subcabinet and my cabinet, when I was Governor: Look, this isn't magic, it is math. If the math doesn't work, then we have to come to grips with this.

With all due respect to my colleagues who have come to the floor throughout the day and have talked about what this process is or isn't, and whether funding is going to be done for this program or what rider is there, all I want to say is this: What we are finally focused on in this great Nation is what we should have been focused on decades ago; that is, we are spending more than is coming in. Every dollar overspent is put on a credit card, and it doesn't go away. It won't be canceled at my death.

I have been going across our State with charts and graphs to try to illustrate this point. I turned 60 this year. When I was a 20-year-old man, our government owed $380 billion. Now, I am sure at that point in time many argued that was way too much debt. The projections now are-- under President Obama's plan--by the end of this decade, on my 65th birthday, we will owe $20 trillion. So in the span of one lifetime--one lifetime--we have gone from $380 billion to $20 trillion.

Mr. President, that has consequences. Now, maybe that doesn't have consequences for a man who is 60 years old--maybe it does; I believe it does--but beyond the shadow of a doubt, no matter which side you want to be on, it has consequences for our children and grandchildren.

So you see, it isn't about an individual rider, an individual program. It is about the fact that we are spending this great Nation into an absolutely hopeless abyss. If we don't come to grips with that, if we don't come to grips with this, this won't turn out, and it won't turn out for anybody.

When I came here 2 years ago, I was stuck. Every conversation was, how do we spend more? I thought there would be a stimulus package when I was elected to the Senate. I thought maybe it would even be a package that I would support. Then somebody said it had to be a $500 billion package, all borrowed money, and I started getting real squeamish about that. Then somebody outbid them and said: No, I think it has to be a $750 billion package. Then I really got squeamish, and I knew I couldn't support that. Then someone raised the ante, and by the time this was all done, with interest, we borrowed from China and other places $1 trillion. And I thought, my goodness, will we take a breather at some point? But there was no breather. There was a health care bill with more gimmicks and scoring than you can possibly imagine.

So here we are today, fighting over whether this continuing resolution should be $30 billion in cuts or $60 billion in cuts. Quite honestly, in the grand scheme of what our Nation is facing, that is pitiful. It is almost tragic. If we don't come to grips with this soon, the big picture, this absolutely is going to destroy any future that our kids and grandkids might have hoped for in the United States of America.

But hope springs eternal. I look at the glass as half full all the time. I think we are going to get through this. I think we will deal with the issues before us--maybe in ways some like, some dislike--but if we don't come together somehow, some way, and deal with what the real issue is--that we are spending a great nation into the Stone Age-- we are going to be a lesser nation than any of us could have ever imagined, and that affects every priority. That affects Medicaid, Social Security, education, national defense, homeland security--you name your priority, it affects it all.

So today I count myself as one who wants to come down to the floor at some point before the day is out and vote to solve this problem, but then I want to do all I can to work with my colleagues to deal with what is really facing us, which is debt that is out of control, spending that is out of control, with a situation where no budget was submitted and not a single appropriations bill. That is where we find ourselves today, trying to patch this together because we didn't come to grips with the budget process last year. Mr. President, that doesn't seem right to me.

With that, Mr. President, I conclude my remarks, and I yield the floor.