past several years now, the democrats have been in power here in the congress, they have consistently violated the pay-go standard about 15 times to the tune of about $882 billion in all this new spending that was done outside of pay-go. now it's like all of a sudden coming to the conclusion and realization that now we're going to get serious about deficits, now we're going to get serious about spending. now we're going to somehow clamp down on all of these new programs that are out there and somehow at least rhetorically subscribing to pay-go as a concept is going to be the solution and the answer to that. well, mr. president, i think that we all know better than that. as i mentioned, pay-go has been routinely sort of ignored in the past and even if it were to apply, as i mentioned earlier, it really doesn't capture much of the spending that goes on

here in washington. it simply is nothing more than a statutory excuse to raise taxes. now, having said that, i mentioned before much of the spending that has already occurred here in washington, and yet the big ticket items are still looming out there on the horizon in the future. and by that i mean health care reform, which is a big priority of the administration. we're starting to see more details, we have a little bit of a glimpse of what that might entail. we know for one thing based on the statements by the president and the democratic leaders here in the congress, they want it to include a government plan, purely and simply. they want a government plan, which means one thing, and that is that the government takes over health care in this country. because you cannot maintain a private insurance program, you cannot maintain a private sector delivery system, a market-based

-- market-based health care system in this country if you're going to have a government plan. and the government plan is where everybody, according to the studies that have been done, eventually would end up going. they would gravitate to more and more small businesses either would be forced to pay fines if they didn't have insurance themselves or offer insurance and the suggestion is, and i think it's a fair one, based upon the analysis that has been done by a lot of the independent outside groups, is that you will see more and more small businesses giving up their health care coverage and having their employees transition into the government plan. the government plan will become the repository for all of the employees currently covered in employer-provided health care plans in this country. the government component of this will continue to grow and eventually you'll have a system that very much models or is very similar to what we see in other places around the world. some people talk about canada. some people talk about europe and all of these great systems.

but the reality is that a lot of people in those systems come to the united states. the reason they come here is because they have the highest quality of care and they can get access to it. one thing that happens when the government runs health care, the government decides what procedures are covered. the government decides what treatments are going to be part of the coverage. the government will decide how soon you can get access to those treatments and what you find in other countries around the world are long lines, long waits. and that's fairly typical of the -- of the country's that i just mentioned. the thing that makes the american system so unique in all of the world is its depends upon and its foundation is a market-based system. it's led to incredible innovation, it's led to incredible research and development, new treatments, new trerpies and has provided all kinds of -- therapies and has provided all kinds of opportunities for people to receive health care and, as i mentioned before, people from

other countries who come here to get their health care. so why we would want to throw out that part of our health care system that is so good and replace it with a government-run system, which, frankly, again, the government is going to get into the middle of the decision between the consumer health care or the patient and their provider, the physician, and make those decisions. and it seems to me that's not a model that we want to emulate here in the united states. we've got, as i said, we have a system that needs reform. we have flaws in the way that our current system works, but the fact of the matter is it is the very best health care system in the world and i think it would be a big mistake for us to go down a path that shifts an moves people more into a government run, government-controlled system where the government decides what procedures will be covered and how soon you're going to have -- you're going to have access to them. i think it does one thing. it obviously would lead to a rationing of health care. by that i mean simply, again,

that the government would have to clamp down on costs, limit the access that people have to certain types of therapy, certain types of treatment, and i think you would find less and less choice available in health care in this country. that's what i think the government-run system would -- would give you in the end. and so most of us on -- on this side have -- and we've laid out a number of proposals, alternatives to a government-run system, everybody says, well, come up with a plan of your own. we have a number out there. we have a coburn-burr plan that's what been introduced. senator gregg has a plan that is introduced. to date we've only seen a little sort of generalities about the democrat plan. all we simply know is that they're going to insist upon a government-run component to that. and, again, it is simply nothing

more or less than a government takeover of health care, which is going to lead to all kinds of outcomes that i don't think most people in this country are prepared for. and, frankly, if they had the opportunity, would not support. but they have entrusted with us the responsibility to look for ways to make health care more affordable in this country. there are a lot of good suggestions, which as i said before, republicans are putting forward. it will be very difficult if the -- if the bright red line put forward by the democrats in the senate and howpt is a government-run program, a -- house of representatives is a government-run program or else. that is not -- i will certainly not subscribe to that solution for america's health care system, nor do i think it will be in the best interest of patients or consumers around the country or providers for that matter to do that. so the health care debate is one debate where -- where that issue is still out there and the reason i -- i raise that is because it ties back into my point earlier, that the amount

of spending and borrowing and taxing that's going on here is -- is -- it's, if you look back at what has already been done, it's enormous by any comparative standard in american history, but the big-ticket items are still out there. because the health care plan, as we understand it, and, again, it is only conceptual. we have not seen the details emerge from any of the democrats ideas. they're starting to roll more of it out. one thing is clear, it's going to have a huge price tag. we're talking about anywhere from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion. of course, if they're going to adhere to the newly announced pay-go standard, that means that this new entitlement program has got to be paid for. so where does that $1.5 trillion or $2 trillion come from? well, obviously it's going to come from some revenues raised from some part of our economy. that means that a lot of

hard-working americans are going to see their taxes go up to finance this new government takeover of health care, which is going to give them fewer options and get in the way of the patient-doctor relationship, and cost them a lot more in the form of higher taxes. and so i think that even though much of the spending that i've already referred to is -- is in our rear-view mirror, all that's left is to pay the bill for that. we still have to pay the bill we're borrowing. somebody will pay the bill. we will hand off the bill to the next generation of americans. obviously when you borrow $1 trillion, some day it has to be paid back. in the mean time when you continue to rack up that kind of borrowing and the interventions whetsz whether it is financial institutions or auto manufacturers, you can go down the list, insurance companies now ghooft has an ownership interest in, we are acquiring enormous amounts of exposure and debt for the taxpayers of this

country. and the health care plan is going to be another 1.5 trillion or $2 trillion on top of that. when you borrow that amount of money, you do have to pay it back. and when you do pay it back -- the only way if you've about the an economy that -- that you're going to make the debt and all the interest that's associated with it, which, by the way, i should mention to, the interest on the amount of debt that we're going to rack up in the next 10 years, the interest alone is about $5 trillion. i mean, think about just to pay the finance charge on the debt that we have in this country and the enormous, enormous burden that places on the american taxpayers and the american economy, and what generally happens in a case like that is if you -- you're borrowing that much money, there's a lot more pressure out there and the people who are buying that debt are at some point going to start demanding a higher interest rate and interest rates go up, a higher return on their

investment, generally inflation follows with it. and so you've got all kinds of economic problems that are created by the level of borrowing that we've already incurred. and we're going to add a new health care entitlement on top of that. it literally is breathtaking the amount of intervention that we're seeing in the private marketplace today. and i would also add that in addition to -- i talked about some of the spending and some of the borrowing that's been done and the tax that's will be associated with health care. and i could go down a list. there's a three-page of various pay-fors or ways of raising revenues to help finance health care. but there's also another big tax looming on the horizon and that is the carbon tax, what we call the national sales tax on energy. if this climate change bill, which is currently moving through the house of representatives, reaches the senate, and if it, in fact, does pass the congress this year, that too will entail an incredible a lot of taxation. because there is no way that you can attach -- sessionally a cost

to carbon in this country per ton and force companies that emit to buy the credits that would be associated with that without them passing it on. they're going to pass it on. everybody admits that. i mean, the president has admitted that. the leader ship on the other side has admitted that. all of the utility companies in the country will tell you that. in a carbon tax, a national sales tax on energy would hit places like where i'm from in the midwest the hardest because we are by and large proportionally more dependent on coal-fired power than are many other areas of the country. the same thing is true, we have a sparser population which means that we have quote a higher carbon footprint which means that states like mine will pay way for for anything like a climate change bill or cap-and-trade bill or cap and tax bill, however you refer to it, there is no way to get around the fact that it is going

to cost an enormous amount every single year for families in this country, for businesses in this country, for industrial users, for school districts. i've seen the statistics from school districts in my state, from commercial users, from residential users about what those costs will be and it is really stunning, mr. president. and so that is another tax that is still out there. add that to the health care tax that will come with whatever health care bill that is pass pd through here and amount of tangs taxation -- taxation will rival what is going on here in washington. that brings me to my final pot, mr. president. and that is -- what i'm really concerned about and what i'm starting to hear more and more from people in south dakota who raise this issue about amount of government ownership of our private economy. we're seeing, again, unprecedented levels. if there is one bedrock

principle in american history is the adherence to the ideals of private enterprise. in recent months the sumpt has substantially deviated from the historical pattern and the federal government owns substantial shares of major u.s. corporations. we own, the taxpayers, i mean, you and i and all of us here are now share holders in a lot of major u.s. corporations. the taxpayers, the federal government own 75% of a.i.g., 5% of general motors, 10% of chrysler, 36% of citibank, 80% of freddie mac and fannie mae, and it goes on and on and on. and so we have all of this spending, borrowing, taxing now on top of that increasing amount of government ownership of our america's private economy. and if there is one thing that americans are clear on, it's that government should not be taking over bigger and bigger shares of the american economy.

there was a survey that said 75% of americans agree that the federal government shouldn't take over the u.s. banking system. that was a poll done in february. more recently 60% say that the bailout loans given to g.m. and chrysler were a bad idea. a new poll on may 3st shows that 67% of americans are opposed to providing general motors with $90 billion -- i'm sorry, $50 billion and giving the government a 70% ownership interest in g.m. 56% of voters said it would be better to have g.m. go out of business. none of us want to see that. but most don't want to see the federal government owning american companies. the federal government is inevitably going to use thattership -- that owner ship to you push its own agenda. robert rice declared if the government is an active

shareholder they should and i quote -- "push management to take actions that are not necessarily geared toward higher shareholder return." end quote. think about that statement. they should, the government owns more and more of american businesses. they should push government to take actions not necessarily geared toward higher return. in other words, the government should use its newly acquired power in form early private companies to further its own agenda. both the political process and free markets are going to be distorted if that happens. in fact, in the new republic, a writer said government manages political decisions which could be a fiasco. the article notes coalition unions lobbying against bailout dollars to principal financial group because of its opposition

to card check. so you find more and more of these pressures on now because the government has a bigger and bigger stake, the government dictating day-to-day management decisions in american business. that is not something -- that is not a path, i would argue, mr. president, that we want to go down. the economist commented on the government-forced chrysler pwrup -- and i quote -- "it has ridden roughshod over legitimate claims over the carmakers' assets. at a time when many businesses must raise new borrowing to survive, that is a big mistake. the treasury has also put a gun to the heads of g.m.'s lenders." end quote. in a recent bloomberg article, bradley quio nebraska warns of some of the problems that citigroup and other banks incur as a result of partial government ownership. among them, pressure for stricter compensation rules,

directors to focus on state-approved social objectives instead of increasing earnings, scrutiny of advertisings or being force to exit risk-taking businesses that are profitable for competitors. mr. president, there's plenty of, i think, thought out there from people who understand the economy and the importance of the private market. its tradition, its contribution to the success of the american economy and the prosperity that we enjoy today as well as lots of anecdotal and other evidence that when the government gets into these particular situations where it's trying to influence the day-to-day decisions of private business in this country, management -- those who are trying to manage our private businesses in this country, it leads to all kinds of fiascoes and disaster. i would just mention one other point, and that is according to

bloomberg, after demands from lawmakers, citigroup consented to report cramdown legislation even though this was opposed by others in the banking industry. pretty clear, mr. president, that these types of interventions into the private marketplace, into the free market economy in this country lead us down the path that is not good for the american taxpayer, not good for the american economy, that stifles innovation and entrepreneurship. in fact, i would argue that it kills the entrepreneurial spirit in this country to have government taking bigger, bigger ownership interests, bigger and bigger ownership stakes in the american economy and further dictating the decisions, the day-to-day decisions which american businesses make that are designed to grow their companies, to get a better return for their shareholders, to become more profitable, to make america more prosperous, to raise our standard of living, to deliver more benefits to their

employees. all these things that have driven this economy and made it the envy of the world. i just don't think that we want to go down a path or stay down a path that gets us deeper and deeper into ownership of the private economy. so, mr. president, i'm going to be in the next day here, introducing a piece of legislation which we will be introducing and filing tomorrow which addresses this issue and which provides an exit strategy for the government, for the federal government for the taxpayers to begin to get out of all these ownership interests that they have in the american economy. and i'll be -- have the opportunity to talk here on the floor more about that at a later time. but i wanted to just this afternoon, as we begin the debate and which is sort of -- which has sort of captured this city and the congress and the administration, and i think very soon will engage the american

public over health care reform and the new taxes, the trillions of dollars of new revenues that are going to be necessary to finance the proposal that the new administration has for health care reform and how that takes us even further down a path of government intervention, a level of nationalization of our private economy -- in this case health care -- and that pattern that just seems to be continuing here which i think more and more are reacting to. more and more americans, i believe, are going to be engaged. and members of congress on both sides are going to be hearing from their constituents about what they perceive to be a real threat to the long-term viability, the long-term prosperity and the long-term protection of the taxpayers' interest. and so i hope that -- i hope they will become more engaged. and i certainly hope that we'll be able to defeat proposals that come before the united states senate that call for greater government ownership, greater governmental intervention,

greater expansion of governmental powers in washington, that will limit the choices of americans, limit their access to health care opportunities, health care therapies, health care treatments that all too often are lost, i believe, in a system where the government rations care. mr. president, i yield the floor. i yield back the balance of my time, and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: mr. majority leader. mr. reid: i ask consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: in my office i received a call from admiral mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. i wrote down what he asked and what he said. he said, senator, there is a sense of urgency that general mcchrystal be able to go to afghanistan tonight. there is no commander in afghanistan. he said -- admiral mullen said -- and i wrote it down, admiral mcchrystal is literally waiting by an airplane. it's 2:00 in the morning thursday in afghanistan. dawn will soon be breaking, and our troops will not have a commander there. is this wh