Floor Statements

Madam President, if I may start out today and use a portion of my time to ask if the Senator from South Dakota would answer a question or two about Medicaid, the first question I have for the Senator from South Dakota is, when it comes to Medicaid, why would we be putting a mandate on States at a time when every State in the country is going through a difficult budget cycle? In fact, Nebraska literally, as I speak, is in special session to cut the budget by over $300 million. Why would we do that with this health care bill?

Madam President, I begin my comments and thank the Senator from South Dakota for answering that question. Having been a Governor and, for that matter, a mayor, this is a very difficult time back home. When I refer to ``back home,'' I refer to Nebraska, but every Senator could say the same. State budgets are struggling.

Today, I rise because I believe there is another important point to be stressed as Senators on both sides of the abortion issue decide how they want to approach their vote relative to this legislation.

We saw a clear pro-life approach when the House passed what is now being referred to as the Stupak amendment. That amendment is straightforward. It says no Federal tax dollars will pay for abortions, whether that is directly or through subsidies or any other means. Put another way: If you accept a subsidy from the Federal Government, you cannot use that to fund an abortion. It is clear and straightforward. This carries on the longstanding tradition of separating tax dollars from abortions.

Now the focus is on the Senate. The House passed their legislation on Saturday. I have heard very little about the importance of what some have characterized as little more than a procedural vote. In reality, it is an important vote that might well become the deciding factor in the debate over Federal funding of abortion. Let me explain. It all depends on whether the

ban on Federal funding of abortions is weakened in the Senate bill compared to the House.

As I speak today, the Senate bill is being written behind closed doors by the majority leader and others. If their final product includes anything less than the House-passed ban, the critical vote for pro-life Senators will be their vote on cloture on the motion to proceed. Why? Because if the motion to proceed is successful, it will end, in my opinion, any chance to match the House bill's ban on using Federal funds to fund abortion. It is the way the Senate works, according to its rules. Sixty votes would be needed to change the bill once a motion to proceed passes. Let me repeat: 60 votes would be needed to change the bill once a motion to proceed passes. We all know, regrettably, that there are not 60 Senators who would support the House provision that bans Federal funding for abortions; therefore, we would lack the votes to close the door on Federal funding of abortions if this bill proceeds to the floor with a weakened approach.

The ban on Federal funding of abortions must be a part of the Senate bill before debate is allowed to proceed. Don't be fooled by the claims that the motion to proceed to the bill is a first step in improving the bill; it will be the final say for the pro-life community.

I applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have declared they will accept nothing less than a complete separation between Federal funds and abortion services. I wish to express unequivocally, I stand firmly with them. If we are presented with a weakened ban on Federal funding of abortion compared to the House version, we must vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. In my judgment, this point should be nonnegotiable.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment, if there is one, be set aside and that amendment No. 2752 be called up.

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

Madam President, this is an amendment I have offered on several appropriations bills. Each time, it has passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Additionally, the continuing resolution includes similar language. But, of course, the CR runs out on December 18.

We need to continue passing this amendment; therefore, I need to continue to offer it. It basically says we are blocking all Federal funding under this bill to ACORN. I do have a piece of legislation pending that would take care of this across the Federal system, but that has not come to a vote yet. So I am offering today this amendment on ACORN. This amendment will continue to protect taxpayer dollars.

I do want to indicate to the manager of the bill that, of course, I am happy to work with my colleagues on a voice vote whenever the appropriate time arises for that to occur.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to salute the 313th Medical Company of Nebraska Army National Guard on its upcoming and second deployment to Iraq. The 313th Medical Company is about to embark on an important mission, and I want its members to know how thankful I am for their service and how proud I am of their professionalism and dedication.

Thanks to the sacrifices made by the 313th during previous deployments and those of so many other servicemen and women, 29 million Iraqis are free, Iraq is the most democratic country in the Arab world, and Iraq has become an ally in the war on terror. As conditions continue to improve in Iraq, with Iraqi armed forces and police taking the lead on security, the need for our presence in Iraq is diminishing. However, we must be vigilant in successfully completing the transition. Medical support from the 313th will be vital to ensuring our achievements in Iraq are lasting.

Members of the 313th are some of the best-trained and prepared soldiers in our Nation's history. Some of them have already been deployed one or more times and their experience will undoubtedly be invaluable to mission success. The equipment they use is the best in world. But, ultimately, their individual patriotism and dedication has made and continues to make the difference in Iraq.

I also thank the families of the 313th. They will also endure hardships in the name of freedom and security. Their support will undoubtedly enable the unit to focus on the mission. The Department of Defense and many private organizations have established programs to assist families while their loved ones are fighting overseas. My staff and I stand ready to assist them if they need help accessing these resources.

The thoughts and prayers of all Nebraskans and of grateful citizens across this great Nation go with the 313th. I could not be more proud of them, and look forward to seeing them all back in a year. May God bless the 313th, and protect them and their families as they answer the country's call to duty.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about health care and the debate that is heading our way, especially now following the action of the House this last weekend. We all read the articles, we hear the debate, we hear the talk about trying to find a compromise when it comes to the government-run health insurance program. Some oppose it with passion. Some say they will not support reform without it. There is a whole variety of opinions.

One idea that seems to be picking up steam in this effort to find a compromise is the idea of a trigger, whatever that means. Proponents call it a safeguard. They say it will trip only if insurance premiums go up.

Here is the problem with that. Inherent in the underlying legislation is the sure-fire trip that could set off the trigger. You see, we already know that current proposals in this health care reform initiative itself will cause premiums to rise. The government mandates and taxes and all of the other things that are going to be burdened upon health insurance policies are going to cause the premiums to rise. We are saddling policies with huge new fees and taxes and mandates.

The Finance bill piles $67 billion in new fees on the very policies that the vast majority of Americans have. Can anyone claim with a straight face that premiums will not go up under these circumstances, caused by governmental action? The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office--if you have any wonder about this--confirms it. Its analysis of the Finance Committee bill says the fees imposed would, and I am quoting from the CBO, ``be passed on to purchasers and would ultimately raise insurance premiums by a corresponding amount.''

This idea of a trigger that trips only if premiums rise is an illusory safeguard. It is because the trigger is rigged to shoot.

Further evidence is the fact that the trigger fires if health insurance is deemed, and again I am quoting, ``unaffordable.'' Guess who gets to decide that. The government will decide that. It will decide what affordability is. So bureaucrats pull the trigger by simply labeling premiums ``unaffordable'' after all of these fees and higher taxes on these policies kick in. This illusory safeguard is meant to appease those of us concerned about making Washington the great czar of health care, but it doesn't work.

I believe the American people see through this. I urge those who support a trigger to be straightforward about what their stance is. If they are for government-run health insurance, say let's go there.

Incidentally, I will passionately debate that position. I don't believe it is in the best interests of our Nation, but I will not criticize them for holding that opinion. After all, that is what the Senate floor is for, to debate opinions. On the other hand, I take issue with disguising a government takeover of health insurance and calling it a trigger. I take issue with laying additional taxes on health insurance policies and then calling a press conference to complain that premiums went up. The implication that the trigger will never fire, quite honestly, gets to be folly.

I gave a speech a week or so ago on the floor and I talked about the opt-in and the opt-out. There is no real option if States will have to face the unfunded mandate's tax and fees. I pointed that out in that speech. The only thing States can opt out of, or choose not to opt in to, I believe, when we see the actual language, will be the benefits. All of the other burdens will fall upon the taxpayers of that State. It is an illusory option. It is a false promise, just like the trigger.

Just like the trigger. Some suggest the trigger is just like the trigger in the part D, the Medicare prescription drug benefit. I have heard that argument too. But, boy, is there a world of difference between what happened there and what is being proposed here.

You see, Part D was designed to ensure competition in an entirely new marketplace. It was measurable. It was not discretionary. It asked this question: Would private insurance companies enter into this marketplace? Well, they did. The trigger being discussed now is very different. It is set up to shoot. It is based upon the word ``affordability,'' and the government holds the power of deciding that issue. Then the government holds the power to tax policies, and, of course, as the CBO pointed out, that is going to translate into higher premiums.

You see, what I see happening here is that the government is setting itself up to be both the pitcher and the umpire--the pitcher, who throws the ball, and the umpire, who gets to call the strike. I do not think the game is working fairly.

The goal of a trigger is to ensure competition. So let's drop the illusions, and let's enable real competition. Let's allow insurance companies to compete across State lines. The so-called trigger is just camouflaging the true intent: to establish a government-run system.

I can't help but wonder, is the intention to confuse opt-in, opt-out, triggers, co-ops, exchanges? But it all boils down to the same thing: you are going to end up with a government-run health insurance industry and a government-run health care system. Whether it is opt-in, opt out, trigger, co-ops, it really is no real option. There is no free marketplace. Instead, it is government making your health care decisions, forcing you, dictating to you not only to carry insurance but dictating the kind of policy you will have and requiring that your plan be approved in Washington, causing many to be displaced from their private insurance.

Now is not the time to raise taxes, add mandates, and put jobs in jeopardy. This massive, all-at-once approach is a very risky experiment with 16 percent of our economy. It is a huge gamble. It is a dangerous risk being taken with our health care.

Common sense tells us that change is needed in this arena, but how about a step at a time to see if that change works, and then we can move forward to the next step. We can take positive steps. But opt- outs, out-ins, co-ops, exchanges, triggers--they are illusions and not solutions.

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

Mr. President, I stand today to highlight the tax hammer, as I would describe it, that is being brought down on the American people relative to the health care bills that are making their way to the floor of the Senate and literally are about to be debated on the House side.

In the Finance Committee bill, there are over $500 billion in additional taxes and fees and fines and penalties. In the House bill, there are over $750 billion in new taxes, et cetera. If you shrug your shoulders thinking: Well, that is a tax on those wealthy people; I don't have anything to worry about; I am not one of them--you are missing something. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth.

In my judgment, these taxes will stifle small business. They are going to shock families who think there is no way their modest income could possibly be taxed more by the Federal Government.

The House bill, let me start there. The first tax is a 5.4-percent surtax on what are referred to as the high-income earners. It raises taxes by about $460 billion. This is a gigantic tax increase. But supporters of it make the case that, again, this is the rich people, creating the feeling that somehow you don't have to worry about that if you are not making a lot of money. But what they don't want to acknowledge is that this is a tax on business and small businesses. In fact, I would suggest if you wanted to be fair in this debate, you wouldn't call it the millionaire tax; you would call it by the proper name--the small business tax.

The Joint Committee on Taxation released a letter yesterday. It found that one-third of the tax--one-third of the tax--will be from business income. The Wall Street Journal has said this recently, and I am quoting:

The burden will mostly fall on small businesses that have

organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations,

since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering

their incomes.

In the United States, there are over 6 million small businesses. Last count, the last available information I could get my hands on, there were over 41,000 small employers in my home State of Nebraska. I have walked through many of these small businesses. I have visited with the people who are trying to keep these businesses going, and they are facing challenges to make the payroll.

Many of these small businesses exist in small communities in my State, and their employees are not just faceless people, people without names. These are people with whom they went to high school. These are people with whom they worship on Sunday, they see at the grocery store. Our small businesses don't want to lay off these people.

Now, what would a 5.4-percent tax do to their bottom line, to their employees, to any potential of hiring in the future, to the communities they support? Well, one can see the impact it will have.

Shawne McGibbon, a former Small Business Administration official, said it very well and, again, I am quoting:

Nebraska depends on small businesses for jobs and economic

growth. During this time of financial stress and economic

instability, policymakers need to remember that the State's

small businesses provide the economic base for families and

communities.

Maybe to some from big cities or States that are mostly urban, the loss of 50 jobs is not a big deal. I can tell my colleagues it is a big deal to me. It is a big deal to my State. Fifty jobs in a community of 1,000 people is absolutely devastating. Those paychecks no longer spent on Main Street can literally bring Main Street to its knees.

Making matters worse, this tax is not indexed for inflation, so what can we predict? What is the most certain thing we can predict about this tax? It is going to have the AMT problem all over again. Each year it is going to creep down, every year capturing more and more people in the middle class.

The second tax I wish to talk about today is the 8-percent penalty on employers who don't offer insurance. Eight percent of their payroll or pay, at least 72.5 percent of workers' premiums, that is what they are faced with. Again, no matter how one sugarcoats it, this is going to cut into wages. For those who pay the 8 percent, that is going to total $135 billion more in taxes taken out of our economy.

The Wall Street Journal, again, I think said it very well recently:

Such ``play or pay'' taxes always become ``pay or pay'' and

will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job

creation, and ultimately growth.

I look over there at the House and they sure seem very determined to throttle the backbone of our economy--our small businesses. I will just tell them as somebody who has represented my great State as a Governor and now as a Senator: You take those jobs out of small communities and you will bring those small communities to their knees.

I pay attention to the wisdom conveyed back home. That is why we do our townhall meetings and we walk in parades and we do everything we can to listen to the people.

A constituent from Pierce, NE, a small community, a great community in our State, said it very well:

With my husband self-employed, around 30 percent of our

income is required to pay income taxes. If these income taxes

weren't so high, we would be able to afford and choose our

own insurance coverage. More taxes for public health care is

not the answer.

I wish to reference the Senate bill and a third tax--the penalty tax on individuals without insurance. It provides that if you don't have a government-approved health plan, you will pay a penalty of $750 for singles and $1,500 for married couples. The Congressional Budget Office has analyzed this penalty. Almost half of those paying the penalty tax would be between 100 and 300 percent of the poverty level. In some States, these good folks qualify for government assistance programs. So we are going to tax them or penalize them and then give them subsidies. Boy, only here could somebody make an argument that is rational. It makes no sense to the people back home.

Listen to this: A family of four earning between $23,000 and $68,000 in 2013 would be saddled with the new tax. We are literally talking about taxing not just the middle class but even below that level.

I remember a pledge being made. Last year, President Obama said:

No one making less than $250,000 a year will see any form

of tax increase.

Yet a family of four earning $25,000 will be hit with a tax within a few years. Boy, that is a long way away--$25,000 from $250,000.

Nebraskans believe they can make better decisions about their own health care than the Federal Government. Let me repeat that. Nebraskans believe they can make better decisions about their own health care for themselves and their families than can the Federal Government. I stand here today to tell my colleagues I agree with them.

A constituent from Kearney, NE, said:

Is there anything I can do to take a stand against what I

consider a huge tax burden and a loss of freedoms?

The individual mandate--just one more example of government intrusion into people's lives.

I have covered three of the tax hikes pervasive in the bills, but it is the tip of the iceberg. There are new taxes, penalties, and fees as far as the eye can see.

There is a very fitting quote from John Marshall. He said: ``The power to tax is the power to destroy.'' The power to tax is the power to destroy.

As the health care debate continues, all of us should remember Chief Justice Marshall's wise words. Make no mistake about it. These various bills raise taxes and put burdens upon the American people at a breathtaking pace. Don't be fooled that this is all about taxing the rich people and the millionaires. This is really about taxing and taking from the American people, and Americans are seeing the truth.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about health care. I want to focus my comments today, if I could, on specifically the Medicare cuts and the impact that will have across this great Nation, and also I would like too zero in on what those Medicare cuts mean for my home State, the great State of Nebraska.

Medicare is a program that is a source of health care for about 45 million Americans. As we all know, it is essentially a program for those who are 65 and older. It dates back a lot of years.

In my State, the State of Nebraska, there are 272,000 Nebraskans who are Medicare beneficiaries. As I have talked to them--and I have done townhall meetings and roundtables all around the State--they are pleased with the health care they receive. If they get sick, they have this program, this Medicare Program, that is there for them.

I want to start out saying that I believe the current plan, which cuts Medicare and claims reform, is really off base with this population. The proposal says Medicare will be cut by over $400 billion.

Let me, if I might, just walk down through the various programs that will be impacted within Medicare.

There will be a $130 billion cut for the Medicare Advantage Program. If anybody has spent any time talking to senior citizens about Medicare Advantage, they will tell you they like this program.

Mr. President, $45 billion will be cut from hospitals that care for recipients of Medicare; $40 billion will be cut from home health agencies; $14.6 billion will be cut from skilled nursing facilities; and nearly $8 billion will be cut from hospice programs.

I suggest, very respectfully, that this health care reform, which will cut Medicare by over $400 billion, is not an improvement. These cuts ultimately will compromise the ability of Medicare beneficiaries to access the care they need.

If I may spend a moment this morning to talk about the profound impacts this will have in Nebraska, the Medicare Advantage Program, as I said, will be impacted by about a $130 billion cut. Nationally, there are 11 million seniors enrolled. One Democratic Senator described these cuts as ``intolerable.'' I agree with that description. Mr. President, 35,000 Nebraskans have Medicare Advantage plans. The plans provide choice and options that people like.

The President said that ``if you like your plan, you can keep it.'' And relative to the Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, he said you will get a plan that is ``just as good.''

The Finance Committee markup was very instructive on this issue. The CBO Director stated that those people who have Medicare Advantage ``will see changes and reductions in their benefits.''

Let me turn to hospitals. The news is no better with hospitals. Hospitals that serve large numbers of seniors and the poor will have reduced payments. The current government programs actually underpay for these services. Hospital administrator after hospital administrator has told me in my State: We could not keep our hospital open on Medicare and Medicaid. They need the additional payments they get from private insurance to keep the doors open. Yet this so-called reform bill cuts Nebraska hospitals by about $142 million; that is, 36 percent of Nebraska hospitals will be affected.

Relative to home health care--a $40 billion cut nationally--seniors receive care in the home instead of going to a nursing home. That is what this program is all about. Under ``reform,'' Nebraska home health programs will lose $126 million over 10 years. By 2016, two-thirds of Nebraska home health agencies will be in the red.

It is especially devastating to rural areas where 80 percent are expected to lose money under this reform plan. It is hard to keep the infrastructure in place right now, much less to look at what is coming. A home health director in a small rural hospital in Cherry County, NE, said this to me:

Nebraskans are a tough and a convicted people. We have

chosen to live in a more rural environment and respect the

fact that not all services can be provided.

However, there are two registered nurses that provide home

health services for seven counties. Our radius to see

patients is 100 miles one way. If a citizen was sick or

injured, they may have to travel 100 miles to see a doctor.

If they are unable to travel, they would just not receive the

care they need.

You see, home health care is not a convenience in our State, it is a necessity. Cuts will likely cause them to close that operation and quit providing the services. If the mission is to improve access, how does that do that?

Skilled nursing care facilities is another area that is targeted with $14.6 billion in cuts. Registered nurses help provide 24-hour care to people who can no longer care for themselves. People depend on them for both short- and long-term care.

What is the impact in Nebraska? The impact is $93.2 million. This dollar figure does not take into account the job loss and financial impact on local communities.

I will mention a facility, a great facility, like all facilities in Nebraska, in Fullerton--the Golden Home Living Center. That is a population in that community of 1,300 people. The nursing home there is the second largest employer. They have a $1.5 million payroll. However, they are already struggling to try to figure out how to stay open, much less facing these cuts.

The hospice program will have $8 billion in cuts nationally. Hospice provides dignity and comfort to seniors at the end of their life. With this ``reform,'' there will be a nearly 12-percent reduction in hospital reimbursements over the next decade.

We have 38 licensed hospice programs in our State. We are so proud of them. Currently, 97 percent of Nebraskans have access to at least a hospice program. The cuts, I believe, would negatively impact the care of dying Nebraskans.

Let me wrap up with this point. Every study that is out there says Medicare is heading toward insolvency, and 2017 is the date most often used. How do we keep Medicare viable? Cutting Medicare to fund a new entitlement, I respectfully suggest, is so misguided. Unfortunately, that is the determined effort of this reform plan. We can do better. We must do better. Nebraskans are watching. Americans are watching. We have to improve on what we are doing here. We need to be able to say to those who are Medicare beneficiaries: We protected Medicare. You are first and foremost in our mind.

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

Mr. President, as I start out this afternoon, I wish also to speak about health care. If I could, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Arizona. In his comments, I thought Senator Kyl hit the nail on the head. What we are looking for and I believe what the American people are looking for in this health care debate is a very thoughtful, step-by-step approach. That is what I hear when I go back home. I suspect other Senators are hearing the same thing.

Today I want to talk about something that I as a former Governor--and I know the Presiding Officer was a former Governor; we were Governors together--have experience with and that is Federal legislation that comes along and it basically says to the States: If you don't like this Federal legislation, you can opt out. I often had that situation when I was Governor. Within the last 2 weeks or so, this idea came to the forefront with the health care debate. All of a sudden, there was this trumpeting going on that there would be a State choice here and that would be kind of a compromise, I think a compromise to bring some reluctant votes over in favor of the bill.

I have to say I am very skeptical of this concept. We have not seen the bill yet here on the Senate side. That is being worked on behind closed doors. I was fascinated to listen to the Senator from Arizona talk about the fact that the majority leader said there is no bill yet. If we are going to start debate here, I hope a bill comes up soon so we have an opportunity to study it. But I think we can look from past experience and maybe get an idea of what this opt-out is going to look like.

No doubt about it, in order for this health care legislation to be able to work at all, billions of dollars are going to have to be collected through taxpayers, be collected all across the country, from all States and their taxpayers. So if a State such as Nebraska is seriously considering the possibility that it might opt out of this bill, it is going to have to examine what choice is available and is there a choice at all. Does that mean the State of Nebraska will get to opt out of higher premiums?

Does that mean the State of Nebraska will get to opt out of any individual mandates that are a part of the legislation? Does that mean that if the Governor of Nebraska says, We do not want any part of this bill, the Medicare recipients in Nebraska will not have to experience the nearly $500 billion in Medicare cuts? Does that mean that if the Governor of Nebraska chooses to opt out of this legislation, he literally has the ability to save Nebraska taxpayers from the $400 billion, or their share of that, that they would pay in taxes for this legislation, or is this going to be like so many other opt-out opportunities that the Federal Government gives to the States, and when you really get down to it, you begin to realize there really is not an opt-out, there really is not a choice; you have all of the burdens of the legislation but, of course, get no benefit.

Further, it appears the legislation--again, I am speculating to some degree, but it appears the legislation would require States to opt out by 2014. Yet it is going to take about 3 or 4 years to get this government plan up and running. So almost at the same time that you are supposed to opt out, we will finally see, in terms of the regulations, what this government plan is going to do to States and taxpayers in those States. I can't see that there is much choice.

You see, today we have the opportunity to opt out of various Federal programs--No Child Left Behind. Nebraska could opt out of the Federal bureaucracy. Why don't they opt out? Why don't other States? Because you really don't have a choice. The burden of the legislation is still going to be there, and by opting out, what you are saying is: I will force the burden upon my taxpayers and we will forego whatever limited benefit is available. So I just say, as we study this, don't be fooled. Opt-out in fact may have more of a downside and I suspect it is going to have more of a downside than any potential for an upside, and therefore that is not a choice.

The other thing I have to tell you is that as I look at this, there really is not an opt-out. I think where we are headed is a first step toward a single-payer, government-type program. Government should not be the sole provider of health insurance. It should not be the sole arbiter of what kind of health care people will get in this country.

What is the track record when there is a government program when it comes to health care? Well, we can look at the track record because there is a lot of it out there. Medicare and Medicaid would be perfect examples. Studies have been done of Medicare. They are done on a regular basis. If you are a Medicare recipient out there, you have heard about this. Medicare is due to be insolvent in 2017. And I am not talking about a little fix that is necessary here; this is trillions of dollars. That is frightening when you think about it. It is especially frightening when you recognize that the proposal is that about $450 billion will be pulled out of this program, not to stabilize Medicare, although I would argue that would make a lot of sense in terms of trying to say that any dollars that you can save in Medicare should stay with Medicare. No, that is not what is happening at all. You see, what is happening is that $450 billion will go to start a new government program, a new entitlement. Then there is that estimate that says about $10 billion annually is the minimum loss sustained by taxpayers every year due to Medicare fraud--$10 billion due to Medicare fraud. Medicaid has a 10-percent waste, fraud, and abuse rate. Neither is sustainable under its current form.

Again, as a former Governor, I will tell you that Medicaid is the greatest challenge Governors face in keeping

their budget together. We all talk about it, Democrats, Republicans; it does not make any difference. Yet a part of this health care plan will shift the burden to the States when they are already in very difficult times.

I recently got a letter from a high school junior from Kearney, NE. She said to me:

In my government class, we have discussed the health care

issue. I feel very strongly about this issue for a few

reasons, the first being the fact that all the money the

government is spending is going to come out of the pockets of

Americans. This will mostly affect the youth of this country.

This will be my generation who will be paying off the bills

that you will create with this health care plan.

My goodness. Did she get that right or not?

You know, it is just the commonsense approach. If you are really going to try to do what we are elected to do, why would you not shore up current government programs first before going off in this massive, 1,990-page bill to create a new entitlement? Why would you go off and siphon nearly $\1/2\ trillion away from Medicare? We should ensure Medicare's solvency first.

I believe the current proposal is about advancing an agenda versus addressing a real need. The government-run plan will not make health care more affordable. I think we are going to see that confirmed over and over again as it is analyzed. If affordability is the goal, let people buy insurance across State lines. You will get virtually unanimous bipartisan support for that. Let small businesses and farmers and ranchers band together to get more competitive rates. Allow tax deductibility to level the playing field between corporations and individuals buying insurance. You see, again, if you did a step-by-step approach, I think you would get nearly unanimous support for these ideas.

Nebraskans see through the rhetoric. I got another letter from a constituent in Omaha:

Please oppose latest iteration of health care reform. This

reform package will accomplish none of the objectives that

have been laid out at the outset of this process.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

I thank the Chair.

This bill will ultimately lead to Government-run health

care, will have more waste and fraud than the current system

and will necessarily lead to arbitrary rationing and long

wait times for treatment.

Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence to just wrap up my comments and say that if there were ever a time to go thoughtfully and carefully one step at a time and work in a bipartisan way to fix this issue, it is now. My hope is that in the weeks ahead, as we debate this issue, we will do precisely that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the amendment process with this unemployment bill. It is a very important point that we are making this afternoon.

A few hours ago the very distinguished Member from Illinois, the senior Senator, got up and talked about how the unemployment insurance bill had been stalled by Republicans. He claimed that Republicans had been stalling it for 4 weeks. I rise today to respectfully disagree with that. We have come forward with a series of amendments. That is what the Senate is about. The other side has resisted votes on the amendments. So we started this process of trying to scale this back. We started out with eight amendments. The majority leader said, no, it could only be six. So Republicans got together and said we will come back with only three Republican amendments. Then, lo and behold, there was an objection to that.

Let me repeat: We said eight, they said six, we said three, and they said no.

It turns out there is one significant vote and it is the Senator from South Dakota who I think very appropriately and, I think, wisely put an amendment forward that would put TARP to an end at the end of the year.

I am new to this process. But I have to tell you, in the first weeks I was here when we were voting on amendments I said to myself: This is the most remarkable institution. Somebody from the minority could literally come with an idea from a citizen back home, put that idea out here, and get a vote on that. There cannot be anything like this anywhere in the world.

What is happening today, if I might point out, is that this is being thwarted by filling the tree. For those who are listening to this and saying what does this filling the tree mean, all it means is that the majority leader, who is in control of the process, simply puts all the amendments out there and there is no opportunity for anybody else to offer an amendment. It is called filling the tree.

Look at what is happening. This is what does concern me as a Member of this great institution. If you go back through the history of majority leaders, you can see what has happened. Tom Daschle, when he was majority leader, I think used this once. Bill Frist, when he was majority leader, used this I think it was 12 times, if I remember correctly.

Today, this will be 22 times that the majority leader has done this. What this graph means is if you have an amendment, as I do, that basically says I like what you are doing here. I don't have any problem with extending unemployment. I voted for the tax credit for homes. I voted, or I would vote, for the loss carryback. I talked about it on the campaign trail. But I have an amendment that says we should pay for this the way we did originally, with stimulus funding. That is simple. This is not complicated. All I am asking is for a vote on that. I think that makes a tremendous amount of sense.

What I am saying is if we are going to act like a Senate, if we are going to give each Member the ability to make their case, then what we have to do is stop this and bring these issues to a vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, may I inquire, is the procedure that we are going back and forth? If it is, I will defer to the junior Senator from Illinois.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I anticipate speaking about 10 minutes, and I rise to speak on the health care bill that is making its way to the Senate floor. Today, I wish to talk about just two topics relative to that health care bill, and those two topics are transparency and, of course, the all-important topic of taxes.

We all have been through elections. We know elections lead to promises. We say things out on the campaign trail. We make promises to the American people and to the people of our State. Well, last election, by any measure, was a historic election. Over and over again, the American people were promised change. They were promised middle- class protections. Very specifically, our President promised increased transparency. There would be no tax increases on the middle class. We can all quote that language--not one dime. But I have to tell you, everything I see about the health care debate at this point leads me to the conclusion that campaign promises are about to be broken.

Without a doubt--without a doubt--the American people clearly support more transparency in Washington. Yet health care has the same old politics. There isn't any transparency at the moment. I remember that famous tape of the President where he said: You know, we are going to do this in front of C-SPAN. We are going to see who is with the big insurance companies and who is with the people. Well, what is happening now? We are in the process of bills being merged--hugely different, monstrous bills--and we don't even know exactly what is going to be in those bills, and it is all happening behind closed doors. I just fundamentally ask the question: If this is good for America, then why be secret about it? It is altering one-sixth of our economy. It simply should not be happening behind closed doors. There is too much at stake.

Everyone should support the 72-hour transparency bill. It simply requires that legislation and a CBO score be available at least 72 hours before consideration. That is a commonsense idea and I think kind of a minimal idea, actually. A 1,900-page bill came out of the House-- 1,900 pages. Yet they are talking about a vote on that next week. I think most people would say: What is the rush? But we should at least get 72 hours, with a score, so we could talk to the American people about what is in the bill and what is not.

This leads me to the next piece of what I wished to talk about today, and that is taxes. A signature promise of the President's campaign was no taxes on families making under $250,000. Wow. What an important promise to the middle class. Let's look at the taxes in the Finance Committee's bill. There are over $500 billion of new taxes and fees. That is a very big number. Who is going to be hit with that? We have had studies done on it. The Joint Committee on Taxation analysis says this. It concluded that for 2019, roughly 77 percent of these taxes will be borne by middle-class tax payers; three quarters of the tax burden falls on those the President promised would not be impacted with higher taxes. What are the taxes? For anyone with a higher priced insurance plan, a 40-percent excise tax will be passed through to the worker. Higher health care costs, lower wages, I think. Any taxpayer who refuses to buy government-approved insurance will be penalized. These numbers could change, but right now it looks like $750 for singles and $1,500 for couples.

The CBO says this: Almost half of those paying this penalty tax would be between 100 percent and 300 percent of the Federal poverty level--or a family of 4, earning $22,800 and $68,400 in 2013. Clearly they are in the middle class. Clearly they are under $250,000. Call it what you will, to the people paying this, to them it will be a tax.

If you do buy insurance, prepare to be taxed by the new insurance industry fees. If you use a medical device, you will get hit with a new medical device

fee. If you contribute more than $2,500 to a Flexible Spending Account, your taxes go up. Many taxpayers who purchase over-the-counter medicine will now see them taxed. Taxes and transparency--two issues.

I will continue, in the weeks ahead, as will my colleagues, to discuss the dangers of health care reform done wrong. Health care reform is needed, no doubt about it, but not rushed legislation with no transparency and so many new taxes on the middle class.

I will wrap up with this. I think overhauling 16 percent of the economy is too important to do fast and to not do right, so I respectfully suggest that we take the time to do it right and honor the pledges made.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak to the pending issue, which is the extension of unemployment benefits.

The pending proposal basically says we would extend benefits for 14 weeks for all States. There would be an additional 6 weeks attached for those States that had unemployment that exceeded 8.5 percent.

You don't have to look very far around this country to see people are struggling. In fact, just an hour or so ago, I was pulled aside by a member of the media. He said: There are numbers coming out tomorrow that indicate some improvement here and there. What would your reaction to that be?

I said: You know, until we see improvement with unemployment, we will never convince the American people that things are better.

We are hearing 10 percent unemployment. I hope not, but some predict we will actually go over that number around Christmastime or the first of the year.

People across this country are struggling. Jobs are being cut. People are being laid off. As I said, many experts are predicting that unemployment could get into the double digits before we see any improvement.

I am not here to say the extension of unemployment benefits is the wrong course of action. Not at all. I am not here to dispute any of these assertions about how difficult this economy is for people. But what I am here to do today is to say this: If we are going to consider a bill of this nature, of this importance to people, I believe it is important that we, as Senators, have the ability to come to the floor to submit an amendment, to make our best case on the amendment, to ask for a vote on that amendment, and then see where it ends up.

The original stimulus bill--and again I emphasize, the stimulus bill--extended unemployment benefits for 33 weeks. So very clearly the majority of this body, considering the issue of extending unemployment at the time the stimulus was passed, said we should use stimulus funds. I would argue that the same logic applies today. This extension should also be from stimulus funds, and that is what my amendment would simply say.

Here are the reasons why: The stimulus bill, quite simply, did not provide the jobs that were promised. Put forth whatever excuse you want to put forth. Argue that maybe you didn't think the economy was as bad as it is, although I must admit I find that hard to imagine. But whatever the argument, the stimulus bill did not provide the promised jobs. The bill in front of us today would do this: It would levy a tax on our job creators--our businesses--of $2.4 billion to finance it. It is an 18-month tax on small businesses, which are the backbone of our job creators and certainly the backbone of our economy in the State of Nebraska.

The interesting thing about this extension of unemployment benefits is that it would expire in December but the taxes would live on for month after month after that expiration.

So you see, I think it is appropriate to come to the Senate floor to make the case that we should not be taxing the job creators in order to support those who are out of work and looking for a job. We should be encouraging those job creators to do all they can to add another job to bring these people back to employment.

To make this relevant to the citizens back home in Nebraska, this will have a $17 million impact on our businesses. That is $17 million that will not be spent on creating a single new job. It is $17 million that won't be spent to hire new workers.

I have talked to many of these businesses in our State, and they are saying to me: Mike, we are doing all we can to try to keep people employed. I don't want to do layoffs or any more layoffs, they tell me. But what we are saying to businesses is: We know you are struggling, we know you are fighting this brave battle to keep these families with a job, but here is another tax extension, and could you also go out and hire some new workers? This is simply out of touch--exactly what Washington was criticized for during our August townhall meetings.

A lot of jobs could be created if we expand this from my small State of Nebraska to a nationwide phenomena. Think of the jobs that could be created with $2.4 billion spent on salaries instead of on taxes.

I have this amendment which basically says this: A more sensible approach would be to use a very small portion of the unspent stimulus money to finance this extension. Don't tax these small businesses. The stimulus was sold as a shot in the arm. It was going to jump-start the economy. But that goal has proven very elusive. In fact, it has even been very difficult to get the money flowing. And don't take Mike Johanns' word on this. The Congressional Budget Office says that some of the stimulus money won't even be spent until 2018, 9 years from now. CBO predicts $22 billion will be spent in 2014, about 5 years from now. I don't know a single person who could argue that is a shot in the arm.

The Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, recently said:

Most analysts predict that the fiscal stimulus will have

its greatest impact on growth in the second and third

quarters of 2009.

She goes on to say:

By mid 2010, the fiscal stimulus will likely be

contributing little to growth.

This baffles and frustrates the American people.

Piling more taxes on people who hire to help those without jobs makes no sense when you recognize that originally a portion of the stimulus money

was set aside to extend unemployment. Why not use a small--very small-- portion of the overall sum to provide an extension?

Mr. President, I just want the opportunity to have an amendment that we can vote on, to be able to make the case that my amendment is a better alternative than what we are doing today. It uses unobligated stimulus funds to pay for the extension. It just simply says to the Office of Management and Budget: Go to the unused accounts--and having been a Cabinet member myself, I will tell you that those funds will be found--and allocate that money to help these people instead of taxing the job creators. My amendment requires only 1 percent--I repeat, 1 percent--of the original stimulus to pay for unemployment benefits. Why not use the money parked in these accounts--which literally is years away from being allocated--to stimulate this economy?

I would respectfully argue that my option gives all Americans a break. It allows the unemployed workers to have that important safety net while they struggle to find a job; it helps businesses that are fighting to stay open and to keep their employees in place, to keep that job in the family, and, my hope, to hire new workers; and it allows us to use taxpayer dollars--taxpayers who are tired of seeing their tax dollars wasted--in a way that I believe they would approve of.

Given the opportunity to submit this amendment on the floor of the Senate, I could ask for its support and we could send a message to the American people that we are listening to their concerns. This amendment immediately puts money back into the economy to pay the bills or wages and to put food on the table. Unfortunately, it appears increasingly likely that I will not be allowed to offer the amendment.

Mr. President, I have not been here a long time. I have been here about the same time as the Presiding Officer. But I have to tell you, one of the things that impresses me so much about this great body, this deliberative Senate, is that we have the ability, whether we are in the majority or the minority, to offer an idea, to craft an amendment-- oftentimes that we get from a citizen back home--and to come to the floor and offer that amendment, make our best case, and then get a vote. It is a remarkable system. But what is happening these days is that precious right is being taken away from us.

I think this amendment makes sense. There may be many who will disagree with me. There will be many who will agree with me. All I am asking for is that I be given the right to offer the amendment, to make the case, and then to get a vote on this idea.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of this resolution to commemorate 40 years of membership by women in the National FFA Organization and to celebrate the achievements and contributions of female FFA members.

It was 40 years ago, during the 1969 National FFA Convention, that delegates voted to allow women to join the FFA.

Today, 41 percent of all members of the National FFA Organization are women, and more than 50 percent of leadership positions in the National FFA are held by women.

In my home State of Nebraska, more than 800 females have received their American FFA Degrees, the highest honor that can be awarded to an FFA member.

To be eligible for the American Degree, members must have earned and productively invested $7,500 through a supervised agricultural experience program where FFA members live out their motto of learning by doing.

American Degree recipients must also make it their mission to demonstrate outstanding leadership abilities and community involvement.

More than 2,400 women in Nebraska have been awarded State FFA Degrees for their accomplishments in their local chapters and agricultural education classes.

Nebraska also boasts more than 260 female State Proficiency winners and 5 female National Proficiency winners. These students represent the best of the best, having achieved the highest level of excellence in their chosen fields.

Ninety women in Nebraska have served as State FFA Officers, with 8 serving as President. Four Nebraska females have served as National FFA Officers. These leaders have invested their time and talents in building influential relationships with members and growing the Organization.

The contributions of female members have helped the National FFA Organization to become a premier student leadership organization, comprised of more than 507,000 members in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

The FFA's mission is to make a positive difference in the lives of students by developing their potential for premier leadership, personal growth, and career success through agriculture education.

Today I am proud to offer a resolution to recognize the positive contributions female members have made to achieve FFA's goals of proficient agricultural leadership and advocacy, community citizenship, volunteerism, and cooperation.

I congratulate the National FFA Organization for 40 years of membership by women and for its role in developing tomorrow's leaders.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that we call up amendment No. 2393.

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

I rise to talk about an amendment that should come as no surprise to my colleagues. The amendment is simple and straightforward. It is an amendment I have offered on a number of occasions that has been approved by this body. It prohibits any Federal funds from going to ACORN or any of its subsidiaries.

This amendment I have offered today was offered on three prior appropriations bills. Each time my amendment has gained significant bipartisan support: 83 votes the first time, 85 votes the second time, and by voice vote a third time. It is important we continue to take this action to prohibit funding in each of the remaining appropriations bills because ACORN is still eligible to receive Federal dollars from many other sources.

For any of my colleagues who might put forward the argument that ACORN typically does not get funding from the CJS appropriations bill, we can't be so sure. The fact is, ACORN has the opportunity to get money from various Federal pots that we could never have envisioned. For example, a public notice was sent out by the Department of Homeland Security on October 2 of this year announcing that ACORN was the recipient of an almost $1 million grant for funds typically reserved for fire departments. Remarkable. Who knew that ACORN specialized in firefighting? I never would have thought ACORN could win a grant designed for fire safety and prevention. But, lo and behold, that is what happened only a few days ago. This happened after the Senate took several stands against providing Federal funds to this group and after House action.

Until a full government investigation is launched and completed into ACORN, no taxpayer money should be used to fund their activities. I urge all colleagues to once again support my amendment. The identical amendment has passed twice on strong bipartisan votes with over 80 Senators voting in favor, and the third time it passed by a voice vote. Where Senators stand on this issue is now well known.

For the record, I respectfully suggest that we can agree upon this amendment by voice vote at the appropriate time.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I ask that amendment No. 2555 be called up. With that, I am sending a modification to the desk.

Before we go to the reading, if I could send a modification to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I rise briefly this evening to speak about this amendment. The amendment would help maintain, in fiscal year 2010, the current level of funding for the National Guard's counterdrug efforts throughout the United States. It is important legislation.

As a Governor, as a mayor, I can tell you what I think everybody knows. One of the toughest problems we face in this Nation is fighting drug abuse and addiction and putting the tools in place to deal with that.

We all know firsthand that drug addiction rips families apart and tears communities down. It is accompanied by an endless parade of violence.

Reducing drug abuse and crime was a top priority of mine as mayor and Governor. In part because of steps we took, we were able to bring crime numbers down. I am proud of that.

I know drugs are not a unique challenge to Nebraska. It is a national challenge. Meth distributors commonly commit violent crimes as they traffic in methamphetamine. Meth users often commit property crimes, burglary, and identity theft. This drug is an enormous burden on public health departments and treatment centers in our region. Meth-related violence and child abuse have also strained local foster care systems, not only in our State but in other States. Because of its highly addictive nature, it takes longer treatment programs and it has a very high recidivism rate. Treatment, needless to say, is enormously difficult.

In the face of this problem, we need to keep up our pressure on drug trafficking groups and work on providing more consistent funding to Federal, State, and local drug task forces. The National Guard's Counterdrug Support Program has been supporting law enforcement and community-based drug reduction coalitions now for 20 years. However, this program often faces considerable uncertainty over its funding, and that hampers operations. Consistent funding would allow police to keep many of the same officers in the drug task force. This would improve communication between multiple different law enforcement agencies, and it would increase their effectiveness.

Rural States are especially hurt by cuts and uncertainty in their counterdrug budgets, since they often have a great deal of territory to cover with very small departments.

To get to the crux of this amendment, my amendment would help address these problems by helping restore counterdrug funding back to its level last year. We are just asking for a level budget. Last year, Congress added $22.5 million to the President's level of funding. The year before it added $20 million. While the Defense authorization this year authorized an additional $30 million in counterdrug support, it was not included in the appropriations bill.

This money goes across our country, all 50 States, and some of our territories. Our counterdrug operations depend on the funds.

If the current shortfall continues, the National Guard would not be able to effectively support law enforcement in their fight against drugs. Our law enforcement and National Guard personnel must be given the tools they need to carry on this battle.

Tonight, in a very large appropriations bill, I ask what I believe is a very necessary amount of money to help fight this war on drugs in your State, Mr. President, in mine, and across this country. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. My hope is there will be a very bipartisan, strong statement that we stand behind this very important piece of this budget.

For the record, if it is acceptable--and I don't know if there is an agreement on this or not--but I want to indicate for the record that I will be more than happy to move this amendment with a voice vote.

Mr. President, I rise to object. My understanding is there is an objection on our side of the aisle relative to this approach. Thus, I rise this evening to object.

Let me, if I might, through the Chair, inquire of the Senator from California if the Senator would renew her request with one change: to include a different second-degree amendment from Senator Vitter which would provide an offset from non-defense and non-veteran stimulus funds.

Mr. President, then I do raise an objection. And here is the point, in fairness to the process here. There are many who believe that the TARP money, which was originally designed to buy toxic assets, has drifted so far away from its original purpose that we haven't kept faith with the taxpayer who paid the bill for all this. On the other hand, the stimulus--which, incidentally, I did not support--

had money in it to do highways and that sort of thing, and that is where the objection is coming from.

So I do stand to object, and I continue the objection.

I thank the Senator from Illinois for that question, but here is what I would say. You can restart the debate on the whole stimulus plan, and I can point to you the promises that were made of all the jobs that were going to be created, and I can point to you the evidence that in fact that has not occurred. But the argument tonight was, look, if we can just get our hands on some TARP money, then we can do all these things. And we are saying, well, look, if the promise of the stimulus was to create jobs, let's use the stimulus. Why not use that fund?

But fundamentally here is the problem. People came to the American people and said: Look, our credit is melting down, our financial system is in serious shape, and the solution to that problem is to buy toxic assets. And low and behold we bought car companies, we bailed out insurance companies, and it just goes on and on. And that is why the objection is coming from over here because this isn't anything near what TARP was intended to do.

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for about 12 minutes.

Mr. President, many have come to this Chamber and have talked about their constituents and the concerns that have been expressed to us about health care and how their families would be directly impacted. The frustration driving many of those individuals who have written to us, picked up the phone, attended a townhall meeting continues. They worry we are not listening.

The biggest misconception is that those who are raising concerns about the President's health care proposals believe that somehow they are defending the status quo. That could not be further from the truth.

We can all agree that health care costs are rising at rates that create hardships across our country. They impact families and businesses, and ultimately they are not sustainable for Federal and State budgets.

There are many things I believe upon which there would be very universal agreement. For example, I support insurance market reforms that increase access to insurance for people who have preexisting conditions. Many of us do in the Senate. I support allowing small businesses to band together to bring down health insurance premiums. Many here do. I support subsidies for those who truly cannot afford insurance to help them buy down their premiums, their deductibles or copays. Again, many here could. I support real malpractice reform that would curb costs by reducing defensive medicine. Again, many here do.

These commonsense reforms and others we could mention could be the cornerstone of what I believe would be a truly bipartisan solution to our health care crisis. But I believe the current proposals have veered in a very different direction. I cannot support so-called reform that lowers the quality of our health care, compromises the doctor-patient relationship, and drastically increases costs for Americans. Yet I worry that the provisions working their way through the Senate Finance Committee appear to do precisely that--increase costs and jeopardize quality. I do not believe it is the kind of health care reform Americans have sent us to Washington to enact.

In our current economic crisis, the last thing American families need is to see more of their paychecks going to pay taxes. This legislation presents a ``darned if you do, darned if you don't'' scenario. It taxes you if you have insurance and it taxes you if you don't.

People who depend on medical devices will see prices rise. So will individuals who take prescription drugs. States will have to raise money to pay for what I regard as an unfair unfunded Medicare mandate. Having been a Governor, I can tell you there are limited choices in State budgets, and State budgets are in crisis today. They are either going to have to raise taxes to somehow find the revenue to deal with that mandate, or they are going to have to do something equally unpleasant; that is, cut programs. Which State programs do you think Americans will want to sacrifice so Washington can have its way with the States in the Medicaid unfunded mandate?

I can tell you from experience, cutting programs is an impossible decision. So is raising taxes. States should not be put in a difficult position again and again by an overreaching Federal Government. Employers will be taxed in order to pay for required health care insurance for their employees. These taxes will create financial heartburn that no doctor's prescription can ease.

This legislation will require every American to have health insurance, with limited exceptions, and not just any health insurance. It requires health insurance that meets specific qualifications the bureaucracy in Washington will dictate.

The Finance Committee bill would require you to spend a certain share of your income before becoming eligible for health insurance subsidies. Under the original Finance Committee proposal, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that an individual who makes $32,400 a year--not a lot of money--would be required to pay $4,100 in health care insurance premiums before becoming eligible for a subsidy. That individual would also be required to pay, on average, $1,600 in copayments and deductibles. These individuals would be required, through the government mandate, again, to spend 18 percent of their income on health insurance. Surprisingly, the cheaper catastrophic coverage some would prefer would not be considered a so-called qualified plan; therefore, not an option.

Furthermore, if you choose not to have health insurance that meets these qualifications, you could be forced to pay out as much as $1,900 in additional taxes per family.

The Internal Revenue Service will be knocking on your door to make sure you literally buy into federally dictated health care reform efforts.

I have heard from many Nebraskans who feel as if this individual mandate is a direct assault on their freedom. Most people do not like the notion that Washington tells them how to live their lives. Imposing an individual mandate tax rubs Americans the wrong way. Not only are we telling them they must buy insurance, but we are telling them what kind of insurance they must buy.

I know some, including our President, argue this is not a tax; rather, it is simply a shared responsibility. The very language in the Finance Committee plan clearly states this is a tax,

and it brings in about $20 billion. Where is the President's promise that he would not raise taxes on individuals who make under $250,000 a year? Well, it is nonexistent. Last week, this was made clear during the Finance Committee markup. When asked about the effect of this individual mandate tax on the middle class, the chief of staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation responded:

We would expect that some people paying would make less

than $250,000.

For hard-working families, the individual mandates will load them up with a fancy benefit plan covering services they may not want or need. They will be required to buy it or their government will penalize them.

This is a complex and a fundamental shift in how we approach health care in our great country, indeed, in how much the government dictates the health care decisions of each and every American.

Furthermore, this legislation raises money by taxing insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, and prescription drug manufacturers. Does anybody doubt for a minute that will be passed on to the average guy? There is little doubt that these increased taxes will lead to higher premiums, more expensive medical equipment, and higher drug prices for Americans. These industries will compensate for the added tax by raising prices, ultimately raising the cost of health care in this country.

Additionally, this plan is likely to decrease research and development in the health care sector, which has been a major driver of innovation and improvement in health care quality. Creating policy that decreases the quality of our health care makes no sense. It is counterproductive. Requiring employers to provide health insurance to their employees or be fined or taxed does not make sense. The Finance Committee proposal is expected to collect $27 billion worth of those fines or taxes. In tough economic times, with unemployment almost in double digits and forecasts to go into double digits, putting more requirements and mandates on job creators and job sustainers is counterproductive. Employers will think twice about hiring more workers.

There is little doubt that these increased taxes will lead to higher insurance premiums, more expensive medical equipment, and higher drug prices for Americans. These industries will compensate by raising their prices. They simply will.

I fear low-income Americans will suffer the most. They need those jobs. We must carefully evaluate the details of this legislation and ensure that our attempts to make things better, which I believe we can do in a bipartisan way, do not ultimately make things worse. I suggest that in tough economic times, creating legislation that increases the cost of health care, that raises taxes is not true health care reform.

I yield the floor.