Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant and true leader in Nebraska politics, Gov. Norbert Tiemann, whose recent death saddened all who knew him. Gov. Norbert Tiemann, or ``Nobby,'' as he was affectionately known, served as Governor of Nebraska from 1967 to 1971. It is a privilege to take this opportunity to remember the life of Governor Tiemann and his many contributions to our State and Nation.

Prior to being elected Governor, Tiemann served three terms as mayor of Wausa in northeast Nebraska. He would later serve as Federal Highway Administrator for the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Nixon and Ford administrations. Ever service-oriented, Tiemann's public service extended well beyond elected office. He bravely fought in World War II and was later stationed in Korea.

Tiemann had an incredible passion for governing and played an active role in the lawmaking process. His leadership as Governor left a lasting impact on our great State. Scholars consider him to be among the most influential Nebraska Governors for transforming the governorship in our State from its traditional caretaker role to one that led public policy discussions.

As we look back on Tiemann's legacy, we will remember a dedicated public servant who cared deeply about Nebraska. I could not be more grateful for his lifetime of service and, on behalf of all Nebraskans, offer my sincerest condolences to his family.

Mr. President, Senate amendment No. 2187 offered by Senator Kerry has now been voice voted onto the farm bill. It is unfortunate that this significant change of USDA policy occurred without a recorded vote.

While it may sound innocuous to add commercial fishermen to the list of those eligible for USDA emergency farm loans, it is not without its negative implications.

Support for commercial fishermen has typically been the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. Thus, USDA has little to no experience serving commercial fishermen.

Additionally, funding for farm emergency loans is limited. Amendment No. 2187 would further dilute this limited pool of funding and divert it from its core mission--assisting our farmers and ranchers.

While this amendment may have been voice voted, I would have voted nay on this amendment had there been a recorded vote. I hope this is an issue that we can revisit and rectify in conference committee.

Amendment No. 2268

Mr. President, I rise today to support S.J. Res. 37. The rule addresses emissions from powerplants. However, in my judgment, this rule goes too far, too fast, and tries to achieve too much in too little time, at too high a cost to our families.

Oftentimes, we hear concerns in my office about rules and regulations. Too often, those rules and regulations come from the EPA. And when EPA rules are the topic, sometimes I have to ask: Which EPA rule are you talking about? Because, let's face it, the list of EPA job-killing regulations is downright dizzying.

However, this resolution addresses only one, which hammers coal-fired electricity generation, especially large coal-fired plants.

In Nebraska's case, the rule would require the addition of expensive new equipment to control particulate matter and certain exhaust gases. Well, how expensive would these additions be? One of our States's largest utilities has estimated they would need to spend about $900 million to $1.3 billion over the next 3 years to get into compliance. So one might ask, where is that money going to come from? Well, in our State, every single penny of these capital expenditures comes directly from users--essentially every Nebraskan. You see, in our State, the State of Nebraska, we are 100 percent public power. That means no stockholders, no shareholder equity, no profits to draw down.

How quickly would they need to come up with that money? The compliance period is just 3 years. These are major projects, so 3 years is not an adequate timeline. Now, 3 years may sound like plenty of time to some, but the actual process that needs to occur, all in a specific sequence, makes a 3-year timeline especially challenging. Preliminary engineering comes first,

then financing, then opening the projects for bidding, and bidding, and then determining whether compliance with bidding has occurred before you could even start the project. For public power, there are rules and procedures that control each one of these steps. In other words, there is no shortcut.

Normally, our utilities try to get these projects done in the periods known as the shoulder months. In Nebraska, these are the months of early spring and early fall--before the summer heat hits the Midwest and before the winds of winter knock at our door and take temperatures down. If the compliance schedule precludes the powerplant from using these shoulder months, then the project costs go up because of the need to buy power from outside of the system. So what does that mean? It means we are faced with compliance that is nearly impossible. And the compliance dates keep changing. The cross-State air pollution rule-- another rule the EPA has finalized just in the last several months--was put on hold by a Federal court after many States affected by the rule challenged the EPA. And we may hear any day now as to whether the court will tell EPA to go back to the drawing board and rewrite the rule.

But the main point is that the stream of rules coming out of EPA is huge and compliance is nearly impossible. In Fremont, NE, a Nebraska city manager described it this way:

Smaller utilities in rural areas . . . will have difficulty

in getting vendors and contractors to supply and install the

equipment in this timeframe. Being Public Utilities we have

to follow a public letting process and cannot just negotiate

a design build contract with a contractor as an investor

owned utility can.

So what happens to Fremont's 26,000 residents? Well, they will face rate increases of between 20 and 25 percent to cover the compliance costs of this rule, when combined with the requirements of two other rules. Increasing electricity bills by one-fourth is huge. It is a huge impact on Fremont families.

The city of Grand Island, NE, estimates that the Utility MACT rule will cost $35 million and require 3 to 5 years of planning and financing and construction.

For Hastings, NE, the same sobering outlook--big expense, rushed timeframe, and a worried community trying to figure out how they pay for it. For Hastings alone, the costs of compliance with this rule and the cross-State rule are estimated to be $95 million over 5 years. Now, Hastings has 25,000 residents. You do not need a degree in economics to know this is an enormous burden for the small businesses, small manufacturers, and households. They will carry the load.

So the vote for this resolution is a vote to tell EPA their approach is not achievable. It cannot work. It is a vote that means there is substantial opposition to the rule and the country does not support

Let me just close by saying that I hope my colleagues will support us on this resolution.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the farm bill that is now before the Senate. I want to say at the outset that this is a reform-minded bill that saves money and continues the evolution of farm policy in our Nation.

I commend the chair and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee for working to craft a farm bill that helps equip producers with improved risk management tools while being mindful of our very challenging budget situation.

This bipartisan bill will reduce the deficit by $23.6 billion because of changes to every title and the elimination of nearly 100 Federal programs overall. It shifts farm policy further away from dependence on income support and, instead, focuses on risk management.

But to truly appreciate where we are in farm policy today, it is important to spend a minute examining how we got here.

In the 1930s, depression and disaster ravaged our country's farm sector. At the time a quarter of this country's population lived and worked on farms and ranches, and most of what they produced was consumed relatively close to where it was grown.

When prices collapsed and dust storms swept the Plains, many were forced off their land to look for work in the cities. But oftentimes no work was to be found.

In response to this situation, Congress passed the first farm bill. It was called the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. The act placed the Federal Government in the driver's seat in making farm production decisions. A structure to eliminate crop and livestock surpluses was established--the thought being, if that was done, it would drive up prices. Literally, crops were plowed under and livestock was slaughtered to reduce supply and then, hopefully, to increase farm prices, according to the thinking at the time.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 made federally funded price supports mandatory for several crops. That would include corn, cotton, and wheat.

Then another law was passed in 1949. It mandated extensive government intervention to maintain parity with prices prior to World War I.

I am not going to start an argument today about whether all of this was the right farm policy during the 1930s and 1940s. I will leave that for another time. But I can say, with no hesitation whatsoever, it is absolutely the wrong approach for the farm economy today and virtually no one disagrees with that.

Over the past several decades, farm bills have improved from those early laws, and U.S. farm policy has slowly but surely become a more market-oriented policy. For a long time the main goal was to support prices for a list of crops. We set high prices in law which distorted markets and discouraged cultivation of crops that did not benefit from price supports.

In 1996, Congress began to shift away from the distorting farm policies of the past, and direct payments were introduced to temporarily support farmers as they transitioned away from an agricultural economy that was very reliant upon government intervention.

Removing the government from price and supply controls created new risks to farmers, and it created uncertainty from Mother Nature. Congress then responded with ad hoc disaster spending to help farmers and ranchers address losses due to weather and other disasters. In fact, since 1996, USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that $43 billion has been spent on these ad hoc and emergency programs.

To help manage these risks in a more fiscally responsible way, a crop insurance program has emerged. This highly effective public-private partnership helps farmers customize protection for their individual operations. Over time, crop insurance has become the risk management tool for farmers.

These are policies sold by private companies for over 100 different crops, and roughly 85 percent of acreage for major crops is now covered by crop insurance.

Last year, in spite of the drought in much of the southern plains and flooding in States such as Nebraska and many other States, farmers and ranchers did not call for emergency relief. In fact, I have heard clearly from farmers in Nebraska that crop insurance is working well.

Today's farmers are certainly some of the most sophisticated and talented businesspeople in our Nation. The fruits of their labor produce an abundance of healthy low-cost food for Americans and, for that matter, people around the world. In fact, trade currently accounts for more than 25 percent of all U.S. farm receipts, and 1 out of every 3 crop acres--1 out of 3--is now exported.

In 2011 agricultural exports reached $136 billion. Our efficient export system, including handling, processing, and distribution of our food and agricultural products, creates millions of U.S. jobs. Given the projected global population growth of an additional 2.5 billion people by 2050, U.S. agriculture is positioned to experience significant growth in just a few years.

This farm bill ensures that USDA is focused on maintaining current export markets and gaining access to new emerging markets for U.S. farm and food products. This is the first farm bill in recent history that does not pay farmers a specific payment just because they are farmers. You see, farmers have come to realize that risk management is best handled with crop insurance. In fact, in many listening sessions I have had around the State, virtually no one asked for the continuation of direct payments.

The bill actually saves $15 billion from commodity crop support by eliminating four programs, including direct payments; countercyclical payments; the Average Crop Revenue Election Program, called ACRE; and the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program, called SURE.

It does not raise loan rates, the price levels that have traditionally triggered the making of payments. It focuses the farm program on revenue, not price--something I proposed as the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture when I served in the Cabinet.

I remind my colleagues that our job in writing a farm bill is not to protect the interests of specific commodity groups. Instead, the farm bill should be about preserving the health of our agricultural economy. This farm bill continues a history of steps in that direction.

It seeks to minimize distortions and allows farmers to respond to market incentives--not determined by artificial prices set in a Federal statute.

I am also glad to see a step forward on payment limits and changes to ensure that those who receive government payments are actively engaged in farming.

I am especially pleased with the efforts to streamline and simplify the conservation programs. That is an issue I have heard a lot about. This bill actually consolidates 23 conservation programs into 13. In fact, I proposed similar changes as Agriculture Secretary during the last farm bill process. The improvements reduce costs as well as make the programs more farmer friendly.

This bill also provides for the basic research at USDA, universities, and elsewhere that is needed to meet the demand for our farmers to produce more food, and on less land, and it does so in a way that includes new avenues to ensure that important work continues in these times of very tight Federal budgets.

Finally, I am pleased this bill builds on efforts to encourage beginning farmers and ranchers, veterans, and others looking for careers in agriculture.

It is important to me that we keep this farm bill as simple and streamlined as possible. I think we can agree that a bill that eliminates nearly 100 Federal programs does just that.

Given our Nation's daunting budget situation, it is appropriate that this bill saves $23.6 billion, taking yet another step in the right direction to reforming farm policy for the 21st century.

I hope we can keep this bill moving to help ensure certainty for farmers, ranchers, and others in rural communities where livelihoods are impacted by these policies. But make no mistake, good farm policy does not end with a good farm bill. Our farmers and ranchers also deserve a more constructive regulatory environment and a fairer tax system. So while I support the bill, I hope we can get some amendments pending to make a good bill a better bill.

This is so important that I led a letter with 43 other Senators asking for an open amendment process. I look forward to the debate and to passing a very reform-minded farm bill.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues to talk about something I think is an issue that without a solution will affect every single aspect of life in our country. I am speaking about our debt crisis, the impending fiscal cliff, and the lack of a budget to address those issues. As I said, I am very pleased to be joined by my colleagues to talk about this issue.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the Senate has lacked the will and the leadership to fulfill what I consider its most basic legislative function: writing and adopting a budget resolution. That has gone on for more than 3 years.

While I understand we are rapidly approaching the time where Presidential politics will consume the entire agenda, the U.S. national debt is also rapidly approaching a significant milestone: $16 trillion worth of debt. We should look no further than Greece or Spain to see what this level of debt would do to an economy if it goes unchecked.

There are so many frightening statistics, but here is one: America's per capita national debt already significantly outpaces that of Greece or Spain. So as we watch them spiral further into crisis, we should be jolted into action by the very suggestion that our debt is equally as alarming. Yet we are unable to pass a basic budget resolution to get our spending in check. That constitutes a lack of leadership.

As I said, I have many colleagues here today who can talk about a better approach. I would like to start today with Senator Johnny Isakson.

Senator Isakson has spent his career working on budget issues.

I say to Senator Isakson, what is the impact of no budget resolution for 3 years? Is there a better way? Is there a better way to approach the budgeting process than what we are dealing with now?

Mr. President, I thank Senator Isakson.

Senator Isakson referenced my time as Governor of Nebraska. But I speak on behalf of all Governors. The Governor has to deliver a budget. In Nebraska, we used a 2-year budget, and that is what makes me proud to cosponsor the Senator's idea. It is the right approach. It simply says we are going to do our very best to get a budget passed and do the oversight necessary to make sure that budget is working.

So I compliment the Senator on his idea. It is definitely a better way forward.

Let me, if I might, now turn to Senator Kyl.

I say to Senator Kyl, when I was Governor I always had the first shot at delivering a budget. I would deliver it. I would do the State of the State Address. It was not that much different from the way it is done in Washington, with the President's February budget proposal. The State of the Union Address coincides with that.

With my budget--and I think most Governors would say this--even when there was real arm wrestling with the legislative process, I always believed I would get about 90 to 95 percent of my budget proposals across the finish line. It was a serious proposal. There were no gimmicks. It was a balanced budget. It did not borrow money to balance the budget.

I say to the Senator, how do you regard the President's budget submission these last years, and why isn't it getting more support in a bipartisan sort of way?

Very clearly this body is saying, the Senate and the House of Representatives, when they vote on the President's budget, they are saying very clearly: The President's budget spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much. It does not solve any problems.

I think actually that is the very clear unanimous message at this point from these bodies. This is not a serious budget proposal.

Senator Kyl makes an excellent point. If I could call on my colleague, Senator Coburn, who, as much as any Member of the Senate, has been the watchdog when it comes to spending and programs that duplicate each other, he has been the person who oftentimes has stood on the Senate floor alone and pointed out to everybody how much waste there is in the Federal Government.

Senator Coburn has been a great leader. He was on the fiscal commission, a member of the original Gang of 6. I would like to hear his views on the budgetary mess we find ourselves in now.

I thank the Senator. We look at those charts and reach the conclusion, inescapably, if we do not start doing oversight and start figuring this out, we are not going to solve this problem. My colleague's reputation as a watchdog of the Federal Government is well earned.

Let me now turn to my colleague, Senator Heller. Senator Heller brings great experience. He might be the newest Member of the Senate--I think he is--but he has great experience on the House side. He has seen how the budget process works there. He now has some experience on the Senate side. The Senator sees the lack of a budget process.

I would like him to offer some thoughts on what is broken and what we might do to fix this.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to commemorate the 150 year anniversary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

I am pleased that my colleagues in the Senate have agreed the occasion is worthy of a resolution honoring this milestone in our nation's history. On May 15, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed legislation to establish the USDA. It gave the agency general authority to acquire and spread useful information on agricultural subjects and to assist in the development and use of new and valuable seeds and plants.

For the past 150 years, USDA has lent a helping hand to our farmers and ranchers as they provide the food, feed, fiber, and fuel to Americans, as well as a growing customer base around the world. In the 1850s, there was 1 farmer for every 2 people in the United States. Thanks to ongoing improvements in technology and management practices, today's farmers and ranchers are able to produce even more with efficient use of resources. Currently, the average farmer in the United States feeds more than 150 people.

The history of Nebraska has been closely intertwined with this story. In fact, thousands of homesteaders settled in the Nebraska territory after President Lincoln signed another piece of legislation--the Homestead Act--on May 20, 1862. This influx of population led to Nebraska becoming the Nation's 37th State. Since that time, USDA has served as a resource to the many farmers and ranchers who continue to make agriculture the leading industry in Nebraska's economy--just as the department has done for producers nationwide.

As the 28th Secretary of Agriculture, I was proud to work with men and women who are still committed to USDA's original mission of spreading information and developing new technologies to increase agricultural production.

Today's Department of Agriculture conducts valuable research through the land-grant university system and institutions like the University of Nebraska. USDA also helps to minimize the risks of weather and commodity price volatility for producers. And, the department helps to protect the health of our plants and animals. But, USDA's mission goes beyond helping producers. For example, those who enjoy a good steak, as well as other meat and poultry products in the U.S., have come to trust USDA's food safety inspection process.

Of growing importance is USDA's role in promoting exports of agriculture products. It is fitting that this anniversary falls in May--which is also world trade month. I think we can all agree that the benefits of trade are great especially to the agriculture sector.

Nebraska is a big agricultural State. And, in Nebraska alone, more than 30,000 jobs and more than $7.6 billion dollars in revenue were directly tied to exports last year. And, these numbers will only grow as we continue to expand access to customers around the world.

In fact, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement goes into effect today. It offers great opportunity to both the manufacturing and agriculture sectors. The Colombia Agreement eliminates barriers for many Nebraska agricultural products, including beef, corn, soybeans, pork, and wheat. For some time now, goods from Colombia have been entering the U.S. tariff-free, while American producers still paid tariffs on exports to Colombia as high as 40 percent.

It is good news for our agriculture producers and manufacturers that trade agreements are finally being implemented. The South Korea Agreement has already gone into effect, and I hope Panama Agreement won't be far behind. These types of free trade agreements are sorely needed so we can level the playing field for our exporters.

We cannot ignore the fact that the fastest-growing opportunities for American businesses, farms, and ranches are outside our borders. They are overseas in rapidly developing countries. I am confident that Nebraska farmers, businesses and workers, and those across the country, can compete with anyone in the world. And, in doing so, we can create new jobs here at home.

USDA has played a key role in making sure our farmers and ranchers have the tools to take advantage of these export opportunities. Additionally, the department recognizes that American agriculture is intertwined with the health of our rural communities. USDA works to ensure small-town-America is not overlooked by a Federal Government that is often focused on big urban areas.

Over the past 150 years, President Lincoln's vision of ``the People's Department'' has expanded beyond America's farms and ranches and rural communities. His vision is alive and well in the health of our schoolchildren, in our ability to supply energy from homegrown sources, and in our leadership role in helping feed some of the hungriest and neediest people around the world.

A key part of USDA's mission--one that consumes the largest portion of USDA's budget--is addressing hunger and meeting the nutritional needs of Americans. Whether through school lunches or assistance for hungry families, USDA plays an important role in supporting those in need.

USDA's mission is one of the most diverse of any department and in every area there are hard-working staff striving to meet the department's goals. On this day, I am happy to recognize the men and women of the ``People's Department.'' Their professionalism, dedication, and work ethic provide a shining example of why President Lincoln called the Department of Agriculture the ``People's Department.''

Together, we celebrate the growth and success of American agriculture and the health and well-being of the people of the United States. We honor the farmers, ranchers, and others whose ingenuity, adaptability, and skill have created the safest and most abundant food supply in the history of mankind.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the issue that is currently under debate; that is, student loan interest rates.

For many students across this great country, the month of May marks the end of the school year and, for some, it

means graduating after years of hard work and moving on to another chapter in their life. Americans have always been people who celebrate hard work and the doors that hard work open for all of us.

Our country was founded on the promise that people could come here to find the opportunity to realize their dreams. So one of the most devastating consequences of the recent economy is that college students are beginning this new chapter in their lives when opportunities are harder and harder to come by. Sadly, today's college graduates are more likely to end up unemployed or underemployed and struggling with student loan debt at the same time. They are more likely to end up with those circumstances than they are to land their dream job.

Unfortunately, college costs have been increasing faster than the cost of living. Sixty-five percent of graduates who got a bachelor's degree in 2010 graduated with debt. So as our economy continues to lag, stopping interest rates on subsidized Stafford student loans from doubling could provide much needed relief. That is why I am a cosponsor of legislation introduced by my colleague Lamar Alexander which extends the current 3.4-percent interest rate for an additional year. It needs to be done.

It cannot be denied that access to education is imperative to ensuring a prosperous future for Nebraska's young people and for all Americans. It should be our goal to foster an economic atmosphere where jobs will flourish, our economy thrives, and opportunities abound for young people and, for that matter, for all Americans. That is why I am so disappointed that today we will vote on a bill that takes such a different approach to paying for the student loan interest rate extension.

The bill we will vote on taxes small businesses and raids funds that would otherwise go to shore up the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Providing relief for students, protecting seniors' benefits, and fueling our Nation's job engine should not be mutually exclusive goals. We should not be pitting one sector of our population against another. Yet that is what we will do later on today.

This bill sacrifices one of those goals I just mentioned and puts another in jeopardy to achieve a third. I believe that is counterproductive. Why? In part because the future of our young people is so dependent on the availability of jobs in America.

This bill would raise taxes on job creators at a terrible time. The U.S. economy only grew by 1.7 percent in the last year, and our unemployment rate has been over 8 percent now for 39 consecutive months. Taxing job creators has a chilling effect on hiring. It isn't straightforward to promise students the American dream while making it harder for them to get a job--often the first step toward realizing their dreams.

The bill is also enormously unfair to seniors. By diverting tax revenues that would otherwise go to Social Security and Medicare, it ignores the warning flags we just received yet again about these programs. A recent trustees' report verifies that both these programs are on unsustainable paths. Medicare is projected to be insolvent by 2024 and Social Security by 2033--two dates that are well within sight. But instead of helping to strengthen these programs for the future, this bill spends the money elsewhere. The legislation ignores reality and, sadly, that has been all too familiar.

The health care law also siphoned funding from Medicare to the tune of $\1/2\ trillion. This money was used to pay for new entitlements in the law, not to extend the life of Medicare. The law's supporters have sometimes claimed it somehow did both--that magically we could count the same dollar twice--but anyone who looked at that disagreed with it, and basic math tells us we can't save and spend the same dollar two times. That was just one of many budget gimmicks used to mask the true cost of the health care bill.

Student loans help shoulder the massive cost of the health care law as well. That law, interestingly enough, nationalized the student loan industry, generating $60 billion over the decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But instead of using that money to address the doubling of student loan interest rates that was on the horizon, Congress and the President spent a portion of that money to help pay for the health care law--simply amazing. It is just one more example of a government that claims to know best when their only remedy is to rob from Peter to pay Paul. Sadly, the misguided government solution we will vote on today will be counterproductive for our job creators, for our economy, and for our Nation's job seekers, our soon-to-be graduates.

But don't take my word for it. There is a long list of organizations representing millions of employers and hard-working employees sounding an alarm over the tax increase being proposed in the bill we will vote on today. They are the people who build our homes, fix our air- conditioners, run the corner convenience store, own restaurants, print the flyers we distribute and the church bulletins we receive on Sunday. They all say the pay-for in this bill is bad policy. They don't buy the notion that it is a simple tax clarification. They identify it in plain English as a permanent payroll tax increase.

They go on to say in a letter to Senate leaders that a payroll tax increase should not be diverted from Medicare and Social Security to a temporary program. That letter, dated May 3, 2012, to Senators Reid and McConnell and signed by dozens of organizations is in my hand and was printed in yesterday's Record.

Senator Alexander has proposed a good option that doesn't slap the job creators with a tax increase and doesn't divert funds that would otherwise go to Medicare and Social Security, and I support his proposal. I would also be open to supporting other pay-fors other than the irresponsible one we will face today. It is time to look for practical solutions that can actually pass the Senate and help the American people. Americans are getting sick and tired of election-year voting where we face legislation that we all know is designed to fail with this singular focus of generating good campaign talking points. While extending the student loan interest rate is important, a prosperous future depends on more than just that low interest rate. Young Americans would have greater prospects for the future in an economy that generated jobs and its growing income. The budgets would be less drained if the price of gas and health insurance didn't continue to escalate, and they would have more stability down the road if their future wasn't threatened by strained entitlement programs and a Federal debt that is now larger than the entire Nation's economy.

Lately, instead of solving these problems, legislation simply looks for yet another scapegoat, another political gotcha, a bill that is designed to fail to get a 30-second spot. Here in the Senate we should not be in the scapegoat- or gotcha-finding business. We should be in the solution-finding business. That is why I am proud to cosponsor Senator Alexander's legislation that does the right thing for our country's students. This bill provides relief for students during a difficult economic time, and it uses money from a fund created from the health care law to pay for the extension. Identical language has already passed in the House, and it is here for the Senate to consider.

The President has already signed legislation into law using this very health care fund as an offset. The President even included cuts to this fund in his own deficit-reduction proposal. But now, when it is politically expedient to oppose those cuts, he has conveniently changed his mind. Well, these flip-flops don't go unnoticed by the American people.

I hope we can consider Senator Alexander's legislation soon and the President will reconsider his threat to veto it. There has been a lot of finger pointing on this issue, but in reality everybody agrees interest rates on the Stafford loan should not double when the economy is struggling. The only disagreement is over how to pay for the relief. It is unfortunate that an area with so little disagreement has yet again morphed into a political football.

Sadly, with this being a Presidential election year, I fear there will be more of this political gamesmanship. But I stand ready to work with anyone interested in solving the problem.

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

Madam President, today I pay tribute to a dedicated public servant and true legal professional, James Michael Kelly. For nearly 40 years, he has served with distinction in his many roles at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This spring, J. Michael will be retiring from USDA's Office of General Counsel. It is a privilege to take this opportunity to recognize his many contributions and thank him for his service.

Since beginning his career at USDA in 1973, J. Michael has served as the department's Ethics Counselor, Acting General Counsel, Deputy General Counsel, and Associate General Counsel. In these roles, he has distinguished himself as a legal professional of the highest integrity. I had the honor of working closely with J. Michael during my service as Secretary of Agriculture. In fact, throughout his career he has worked with a total of 13 Secretaries of Agriculture. J. Michael has guided many at USDA in upholding all legal and ethical standards. His character, commitment, and professionalism are to be commended.

Though J. Michael's nearly 40-year history with USDA is impressive, it does not reveal the full extent of his service to our country. In addition to his years at USDA, he served for two years in the U.S. Army and for six years at the U.S. Small Business Administration. I thank J. Michael for his combined 47 years of military and civilian service.

I can personally speak to J. Michael's dedication to USDA, which will long be remembered and appreciated. I congratulate him on his retirement and thank him again for his service to our country. I also wish to express my gratitude to J. Michael's wife, Mary Jo (Josie), and their family for supporting his service. May God bless J. Michael and Josie as they begin a new chapter in their lives.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to once again speak about a topic I have spoken to many times over the last 2 years; that is, the health care law.

Today I would like to focus on a number of aspects of the health care law, but to start I would point out that this law actually enacted the largest expansion of Medicaid since its inception in 1965. The law dramatically increases government spending, it ties the hands of States, it is going to bankrupt State budgets, and it traps nearly 26 million more Americans in a broken system.

Last week's Medicaid Actuary report indicates that 25.9 million more Americans will be dumped on Medicaid under the new law. The week before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office pointed out that Federal spending on Medicaid will increase by $168 billion. That is just compared to last year's projection. That means this expansion alone is projected to cost the Federal taxpayers $795 billion through 2021.

That is at a time when not only our Federal budget is struggling, but in addition to that our State budgets are in trouble. Added up, the Federal Government will spend $4.6 trillion on Medicaid over the next 10 years, a staggering number--$4.6 trillion.

Medicaid spending is projected to increase 35 percent once the law is fully implemented. So with our national debt now approaching $16 trillion and compounding exponentially, as we borrow 42 cents of every $1 we spend every day, instead of reining in costs, the health care law is doubling down with spending.

But the Medicaid expansion did not stop with wrecking Federal budgets. It hammers State budgets as well. This program already consumes 24 percent of State budgets. The law's Medicaid expansion will force $118 billion in additional unfunded mandates on our States through 2023. The National Governors Association has weighed in on this issue. They said: ``Spending on Medicaid is expected to consume an increasing share of State budgets and grow much more rapidly than State revenue growth, resulting in slow or no growth in education, transportation, or public safety.''

The Nebraska impact tells the story. The Governor commissioned a study in Nebraska to see what the impact would be on the health care law on the State budget. Nebraska will spend an additional $526 million to $766 million over the next 10 years on its Medicaid Program. The expansion could add up to 145,000 Nebraskans to the Medicaid Program over the next decade.

Currently, one in nine Nebraskans is enrolled in Medicaid. The new provisions of the law will expand eligibility to one in five Nebraskans, 20 percent. Governor Heineman addressed this issue. He said: This unfunded and unparalleled expansion of Medicaid is an unfair and unsustainable mandate on Nebraska and other States. The Federal health care law is an extraordinarily large and excessive unfunded

mandate for States. It is potentially devastating to our State budget.

Today, with me on the floor, I am joined by two former Governors. All three of us have had to deal with balancing budgets, and we had no choice but to make sure that at the end of our legislative sessions, our budgets were, in fact, balanced.

Senator Alexander was vocal in speaking out against this policy during the health care debate. He has a rather unique perspective because not only is he a former Governor, he is a former U.S. Secretary of Education. I would like the Senator to take a few minutes and explain how this law is going to effect the health care system, our educational system, our States, and for that matter our country.

Senator Alexander has raised some excellent points there because Governors only have so much revenue they can deal with; they cannot invent it, if you know what I am saying. So Governors have to figure out what the needs of the State are. If the Federal Government is taking that decision away from Governors by forcing them into expanding their Medicaid, there is going to be less money available for programs such as K 12 education, higher education.

Let me, if I might, turn to our colleague Senator Hoeven. He was a Governor for 10 years in the State of North Dakota. Will the Senator please explain the impact Medicaid expansion would have on budget decisions as a Governor and the impact the health care bill is going to have on the Senator's State.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Hoeven for his comments. He mentioned that job one for every Governor is job creation. Before I turn to Senator Alexander, let me congratulate Senator Hoeven. Whatever he did in that capacity worked. He has the lowest unemployment rate of any State. I am proud to say Nebraska is No. 2 in that regard.

I will guarantee one thing you learn: You don't create jobs by putting a big wet blanket of more regulations on the job creators. I worry that all these rules and regulations are going to have a very damaging impact on job creation.

I would like Senator Alexander to talk about that, what he sees as the impact of this health care bill on job creation in our States.

The Senator raises a good point. I am mindful of our time limit. I am going to take a minute or two to wrap up. I do think Senator Alexander and Senator Hoeven both raised very good points.

I look at the health care law and I often think, whoever wrote this law, who were they talking to? They certainly were not talking to our small- and medium-sized businesses across this country. Why? Because just as Senator Alexander points out, there is going to be a point where that business owner, large or small, and in each and every spot in between, will look at the penalty of $2,000 per employee and say it is vastly cheaper for them to drop coverage and pay the penalty. In fact, we figured out what that savings would

be for a large retailer in the United States. It was over $1 billion a year.

Does anybody believe for a moment that they are not going to do what is right by their shareholders and pay that penalty and save $1 billion a year by dropping health care coverage? Once that dam breaks, the dam breaks.

Then do you remember that promise so often made--47 times? The President said, ``If you like your plan, you are going to be able to keep it.'' Well, people are not going to be able to keep it. They will lose their plans.

They certainly were not talking to Governors when they wrote this bill. Any Governor would tell us that Medicaid is a broken system. It is literally bankrupting State budgets under current circumstances. Then when we add 26 million more people to Medicaid, we begin to realize they are going to have a serious access problem.

Forty percent of doctors do not take Medicaid patients. Where are they going to find their health care? As many of us pointed out, it is like saying to someone: Here is your bus ticket, travel anywhere you want--oh, by the way, there are not enough buses to haul all the people we have given tickets to.

That is what we are going to be facing--a growing access problem. Then, with the cuts to Medicare, they sure could not have been talking to Medicare providers because when they start cutting reimbursement rates, which is exactly what they are doing with $\1/2\ trillion cut out of Medicare, they are going to have access problems there too.

All of a sudden senior citizens cannot find a doctor. Don't believe my statement on that. Read the reports from Richard Foster, the Chief Actuary at CMS, who studied this and said these are the consequences of this legislation.

At the end of the day it is pretty clear to all of us that this is a failed policy that was quickly put together, rammed through to roll over the minority and get this done. We ended up with a very failed piece of legislation.

The American people do not like this legislation any better than the day it was passed. In fact, they like it less. The more they learn about this legislation, the less they like it.

I will wrap up with one thought. We all know the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on this case these days. It is my hope the Supreme Court will intervene and decide that this law is in fact unconstitutional, and then we can build a health care law the way it should be done--a step at a time, consulting with medical providers and Governors all across this country to build a policy that makes sense for the health care system and our citizens. That is what should have been done in the first place. That is what we need to do.

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

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

Madam President, the anniversary of any new law should be a time to celebrate accomplishments and new landmarks. But the almost constant flow of bad news, unfavorable reports, and broken promises makes the second anniversary of the health care law anything but a celebration. Rather, it is something that even the White House seems embarrassed to mention.

The truth is the policy behind the bill was flawed. The truth is that the law is fundamentally flawed. It raises taxes and health care costs for working Americans. It puts bureaucrats between patients and their doctors. It tangles our Nation's job creators in regulations and redtape, and it defies

our country's most sacred document--the Constitution of the United States.

Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court begins hearings to determine whether the health care law violates the Constitution. It is one of the most important cases reviewed in recent history. The Court has set aside a remarkable 6 hours for oral arguments--more time than has been devoted to a case in over four decades. Its ruling will have a far- reaching impact on our health care system, but it doesn't stop there. It will have a far-reaching impact on our economy, and fundamentally on the expanse of congressional authority over the individual citizen.

I hope the Supreme Court will resolve the countless problems in this law for good by striking it down in its entirety.

The facts tell us that with the passage of time, things have not gotten better with this law; they have, in fact, gotten worse. Take last week's report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as one example. We learned something about the cost of this bill. Before the bill was passed, many of us were saying this bill was filled with budget gimmicks to make it look cheaper to the American people than it was. Well, we learned that the cost of the law's coverage provisions alone is projected to balloon to $1.7 trillion.

The problem is that CBO only does 10-year projections, so the major provisions of this law were delayed until 2014. Why? Well, the reason for that is it was done to mask the true costs of this bill when it was fully implemented. When we eliminate gimmicks such as this and consider the law's first 10 years of full implementation, I fully expect the total cost of this legislation will not be the $900 billion promised by President Obama, it will be $2.6 trillion. This law certainly doesn't bend the cost curve down.

CBO concludes that families buying insurance on their own will pay an astounding $2,100 more a year for that insurance. Yet then-Candidate Obama promised that Americans would see their premiums decrease by $2,500 by the end of his first term.

The recent CBO report also noted that the Federal Government will spend $168 billion more on Medicaid compared to last year's estimate.

The truth keeps coming out. That means more people will be trapped in a broken program where waiting lines will, in fact, be longer, emergency room visits will be more frequent, because that is the only place they can find care, health care outcomes will get worse, and 40 percent of physicians today won't even see patients in this program.

This law does not deliver better quality health care either. Imposing Medicaid on more people is like giving someone a ticket to ride a bus that has broken down hundreds of miles away but claiming they have a ticket so, in fact, they have the opportunity for transportation. Not only that, the law puts all the pressure and burden on our States to implement the Medicaid Program's largest expansion since 1965, placing $118 billion in unfunded mandates on States, when our States are struggling to figure out how they balance their budgets today. As a former Governor who has balanced budgets, I believe this expansion dumped on our States to manage is a critical and fatal flaw of this legislation.

CBO also recently projected that up to 20 million more working Americans could lose their employer-sponsored health care coverage because of this health care law. That is an incredible shift, especially when we consider that our President promised no fewer than 47 different times: ``If you like your plan, you can keep it.''

In addition to a potential 20 million employees losing their current coverage, 7 million seniors are likely to lose their Medicare Advantage plans. According to the Congressional Budget Office Director, more than 3,200 Nebraskans enrolled in Medicare Advantage will, in fact, have their benefits cut in half. Families in 17 States, including Nebraska, no longer have access to child-only health insurance because of mandates in the law.

Wait a second. I just said in 17 States they no longer have access to a child-only health insurance policy because of this law's effect. That is incredible.

Our Nebraska insurance commissioner called this collapse of the child-only market ``an example of the unintended consequences of this imperfect law.''

Here we see the President's promise, again, flipped on its head: This law forces you to say goodbye to the coverage you like for children.

Over the past 2 years, I have traveled across the great State of Nebraska hosting townhalls, roundtables, and meetings, and I am finding that the more folks know about this law, the more they detest it. Religious schools and hospitals and charities are troubled because the law will force them to violate their deeply held beliefs. Seniors are concerned that the law will limit access to care because it siphons $500 billion from Medicare and uses it as a piggy bank to spend on other government programs.

The administration's own Medicare Actuary has projected ``the prices paid by Medicare for health services are very likely to fall increasingly short of the costs of providing these services.'' The CMS Actuary continued that these Medicare cuts could result in ``severe problems with beneficiary access to care.''

Let me translate that. That means this law will make it more difficult for senior citizens to get health care because the Federal Government is not paying its way. Others wonder what the 159 new boards established by this law will mean for access to health care, and hard- working Nebraskans question how the law's $\1/2\ trillion in taxes will affect their families. Approximately 428,000 Nebraskan households making less than $200,000 will pay higher taxes--approximately 428,000. That is based on estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Small businesses across Nebraska have shared with me that they are holding off on hiring because of the mandates in this legislation. At a roundtable last week, business men and women expressed their concerns about the law's tax on health insurance companies in the fully insured market, and with good reason. The health insurance tax alone could impose $87 billion in costs on businesses and their employees over the law's first 10 years alone.

An analysis by the National Federation of Independent Business indicates this law will force the private sector--will force the private sector--to cut between 124,000 and 249,000 jobs between now and 2021. That is not just a statistic, those are families who will lose a job because of this health care bill.

It is remarkable that in the midst of our economic situation, the President's signature legislation actually reduces jobs. These are some of the many reasons Nebraskans are demanding louder than ever that this law be repealed.

Now, some of the law's supporters have taken up the mantra: Well, don't repeal it, repair it. That is a nice slogan. This law, though, is so fatally flawed no bandaid is ever going to fix it.

I experienced firsthand how difficult it is to change this law when I worked to repeal the 1099 reporting requirement, which nearly everybody agreed was idiotic. It would have increased paperwork burdens on our Nation's job creators by up to 2,000 percent.

The administration even agreed this pay-for in their law needed to go, and, in the end, 87 Senators supported full repeal of the provision. But it took 9 months and 7 votes before my efforts to repeal a provision that everybody agreed was idiotic was finally successful. So anyone who tells you we can tinker with the law to fix it might as well offer you ocean-front property in the State of Nebraska.

The 2,700-page law is one of the largest pieces of legislation ever passed in this Nation's history. Its provisions are interconnected, ill-fated, and far-reaching, and they will affect every single American economically, socially, and physically. We cannot sit idly by and allow for the negative consequences to continue unraveling, and they will.

As I said, I hope the Supreme Court strikes down this entire law. But if it does not, we will continue our fight to repeal it, as Nebraskans demand that I do. We must protect the rights of Americans to choose their doctors, to select their insurance, to trust their care, and to protect their conscience rights. We must ensure employers see reforms that reduce regulations and redtape and instead increase efficiencies and address the underlying costs. We must give States the flexibility to run their Medicaid Program in

the best way that serves the needs of those vulnerable populations in that State.

This law is misguided. It stifles job growth and does not improve health care for millions of Americans, and it should be wiped off the books. Americans are demanding it, Nebraskans are demanding it, and they deserve that.

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

Mr. President, we rise today to engage in a colloquy on an issue that is certainly front and center and has been for a long time in our great Nation, and that is the issue of the health care bill. This bill is hurting working Americans and small businesses, and they are the lifeblood of our economy.

Let me, if I might, talk about a company from Nebraska: Toba, Inc. Toba is located in Grand Island, NE. They are a food distributor in central Nebraska. They employ about 200 to 300 people, depending on the time of the year. It is companies such as this that are the heart and soul of the Nebraska economy.

Tony Wald is the chief executive officer of Toba. He shared with me not long ago that their health care premiums recently increased by 26 percent. Tony's insurance agency talked to him. Of course, Tony wanted to know: What is going on here? What is wrong? Well, the insurance agent said to Tony there were several provisions in the health care law that were the reason for the increase.

Let me put this in perspective. That 26-percent increase is an extra $188,000 increase that ultimately falls in the laps of the employees of Toba. Hundreds of working Americans will see their premiums go up as a result of this health care law.

Let me point out something that is very obvious. That is a broken promise. Then-Candidate Obama promised that Americans would see their premiums decrease--decrease--by $2,500 by the end of his first term in office. Well, that has not been the reality. This health care law drives up premiums and Toba is a perfect example of that.

But I need not stop there. Let me talk about Yellow Van Cleaning and Restoration Services in Kearney, NE, just down the road a bit from Grand Island. This small business employs 48 people. The owner is a fine gentleman by the name of Dave Keiter. He believes he has positioned his company correctly to grow it. In fact, some recent market research that was done shows his company is poised for growth. They have done all of the right things to take this small business and lay the right foundation so they can grow.

Dave was faced with a tough choice--a choice not caused by his competitors, a choice not caused by a bad economy. He was faced with a tough choice caused by President Barack Obama and Democrats in the House and Senate who passed the health care bill. What is his tough choice? He had to choose not to expand because he will run smack-dab into the employer mandate if he grows his business.

You see, this mandate requires that employers with at least 50 full- time employees offer government-approved health insurance to their employees or pay a fine of $2,000 per employee. Dave did the calculation on this--a small

business, with tight profit margins, doing everything they can to make the right decisions. Dave's calculation indicates he will be penalized more than $50,000 a year if he grows beyond his current 48-member staff.

There is no doubt about it. This law is stifling job creation. Not only does this law prevent jobs from being created, it is forcing businesses to actually eliminate jobs.

An Iowa-based insurance company recently decided to exit the individual insurance market, abandoning sales directly to individuals and families. So what happens? Thirty-five thousand policyholders lose that insurance through that company. But it does not stop there. Mr. President, 110 employees will lose their jobs--70 in Nebraska.

A driving factor is the medical loss ratio provision in the law which micromanages how insurance companies spend their revenues. The CEO of the insurance company said job loss was ``a fairly predictable consequence of the regulation.''

These are not hypothetical situations. Before the law was passed, I came to the floor many times with my colleagues and pointed out the flaws in this ill-conceived legislation. Now we are telling real stories, real-life stories and talking about real people who have lost their jobs and are being impacted by this ill-advised law.

There is more. While I can directly point out that 70 Nebraskans lose their job, the Congressional Budget Office says the new law will mean 800,000 fewer jobs over the next decade.

Similar to Yellow Van Cleaning in Kearney, NE, other businesses are holding off on hiring. In a recent Gallup survey, 48 percent of small businesses are not hiring because of the potential cost of health insurance under the health care law.

Financial sector analysts at UBS have stated that the law is ``arguably the biggest impediment to hiring, particularly hiring of less skilled workers.'' Those are the people who need the jobs most.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates average premiums will increase by 27 to 30 percent under this law largely because the new health care law's coverage mandates will force premiums up.

It is no wonder Toba in Grand Island, NE, is seeing its health care costs go up by a staggering $188,000 per year. The Medicare Actuary says this law will increase health care spending by $311 billion over the next 10 years. Two years have passed and things are only getting worse. This law is suffocating job growth around the country.

Let me, if I might, now turn to my colleagues. I have a question, if I might start with Senator Portman.

Senator Portman joins me on the floor and I appreciate that. I know the Senator has a unique perspective because he has served as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Does the Senator see this law increasing costs in his home State? Is it straining job creators as we are seeing in Nebraska?

I thank Senator Portman. The Senator has made so many excellent points.

I believe if we look at the people who have spoken about this legislation, before and after its passage, one would be hard-pressed to find anyone who speaks with greater authority than Dr. Tom Coburn, who is a Member of the Senate.

I would ask Dr. Coburn to weigh in on this health care bill. He has talked through the years so often about what this health care bill is doing to medicine, the impact it is going to have on patients, the impact on the economy, the impact on jobs. I would like the Senator to talk to us today about what he is seeing as we are literally on the time of the second anniversary and tell us how this is panning out. It has been the law now for a couple of years. What is the reality of this legislation?

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

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

Mr. President, today I wish to applaud the spirit of community betterment that led to a beautiful new wing of the Phelps Memorial Health Center in Holdrege, NE. As often occurs across our great State, citizens in the area saw a need and rose to meet it. They joined forces with officials at the hospital and set a determined course, without holding out their hands for taxpayer dollars to make it happen. They recognized that high quality medical care is part of the lifeblood of the community and knew the hospital would benefit from renovation and expansion. So, they rolled up their sleeves and came together to create the vision, raise the money and turn the dirt.

Some doubted the community would accomplish a multimillion dollar expansion during a recession in a rural area without taxpayer dollars. Those doubters underestimated the motivation of Nebraskans who love their community. Citizens in the area have proven that there is no limit to what can be

accomplished when people come together. The new, state-of-the-art wing is truly impressive.

I was honored to see it firsthand when I attended the ribbon-cutting ceremony and applauded the many people who poured their hearts into the project. The nearly 50,000 additional square feet; four cutting-edge operating suites; and patient rooms with maximum comfort and connectivity are remarkable, to say the least.

The heart and soul of healthcare in Nebraska is a hospital like the Phelps Memorial Health Center, providing high-quality and compassionate care close to home. Today I celebrate their success in turning an aging institution into a state-of-the-art facility and highlight it as a shining example of what can be accomplished with determination and commitment.