Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, earlier this week, as the debate on this legislation began, the distinguished majority whip said that ``we are here because of Newtown, Connecticut.'' I agree. Had that horrific event not occurred last December, this legislation would not have been introduced. I share with all Americans the sorrow, frustration, and anger that follows a tragedy like what happened in Newtown or earlier in Aurora, Colorado, and Arizona. I share the sense that we must respond in some way, that we must prevent such tragedies in the future. We feel that way even though we know that such a guarantee is impossible, especially in a country that we want to remain free. But when a tragedy like that occurs, our fellow Americans look to Congress as if to say: Don't just stand there, do something. If we are here because of Newtown, if this legislation is indeed a response to that tragedy to prevent it from happening again, then it seems obvious that there should be some connection between what happened there and what is happening here. Common sense would say that Newtown must have exposed some deficiency in our laws or some gap that needs to be filled. Common sense would say that a legislative response to Newtown would be something that could have prevented this tragedy and, therefore, can prevent a similar tragedy in the future. That is what common sense would say, but it is just not true. In fact, the same day that the majority whip said that we are here because of Newtown, liberal columnist Richard Cohen wrote in the Washington Post that this legislation would do ``absolutely nothing to avoid such a tragedy.'' Expanding background checks, for example, would not have prevented the Newtown shooting because Adam Lanza did not purchase the weapons that he used, nor would they have prevented the Aurora shooting because James Holmes not only legally purchased the weapons he used, but would have passed a background check even under the bill before us. We may be here because of Newtown, but the bill we are considering simply does not respond to that tragedy. As I said, I share the feeling after a tragic event that we must take action. We must, however, resist the temptation to believe that more legislation is always the answer. The truth is that the Newtown and Aurora shooters, as well as the Columbine shooters before them, broke dozens of Federal, State, and local laws already on the books. Federal law has already created more than 60 different firearms offenses. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms posts on its Web site a reference guide to Federal firearms regulations. It is 243 pages long. But during the first decade of the 21st century, according to the Census Bureau, the percentage of intentional homicides from handguns, rifles, or shotguns all declined rather than rose. Even more important than these legislative considerations is the fact that public policy in this area impacts fundamental constitutional rights. When other tragedies occur, even terrorist attacks, we often hear that such circumstances must not weaken our commitment to the Bill of Rights, and I do not believe we should do so now. One of the disturbing arguments I have heard so often during this debate is that Americans do not ``need'' certain guns for certain activities or do not ``need'' to exercise their Second Amendment rights in certain ways. This dangerous view gets it exactly backwards. The place to start is with the individual right that the Constitution guarantees and the burden should be on the government to justify infringing or limiting that right. Imagine if the government told us how much speech or the exercise of religion we ``need'' under the First Amendment or if the government told us how much privacy we ``need'' under the Fourth Amendment. My liberal friends would howl in protest if we treated other provisions of the Bill of Rights in the way they want to treat the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right of individuals to keep and bear arms. In fact, the Second Amendment merely codifies a right that already existed, a right that predates the Constitution itself. In 1982, when I chaired the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, we published a landmark report on the history of this fundamental right. More than 25 years before the Supreme Court officially said so, our report established that the Second Amendment ``was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.'' The President yesterday called it ``shameful'' that the Senate defeated gun control proposals that he favors. I disagree. There was nothing shameful about opposing legislation that failed to respond to the Newtown tragedy, that cannot prevent such tragedies from ever happening again, and that undermines the Bill of Rights. Two things will always be true as we continue grappling with violence in our society: people, not guns, kill and harm other people and criminals will not obey the law. It does no good to pretend otherwise or legislate for a society in which those things are not true, in other words, for a society that does not exist. We have to address the society we have, a society we want to remain free, a society in which we are protected by the Constitution. I could not support the legislation before us because it failed to meet this standard.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay special tribute to a man I have admired, L. S. ``Sam'' Skaggs. Sam was a private and quiet man yet had a resounding impact on Utah's business climate and many community initiatives that will be felt for generations. Sadly, Sam recently passed away leaving a void to many. Sam was part of a large family dynasty whose name became known throughout the country in the food and drug industry. Sam was just a young man when the sudden death of his father threw him into the leadership of the family corporation. It was apparent early on that his aptitude for business and his strength as a leader would serve the family and its businesses well for many years to come. During his leadership the chain of less than a dozen drugstores grew to more than 200 stores. He also oversaw the transition to the larger American Stores brand. His name became synonymous with expertise in the growth of business employing the strategy of a low, high volume approach and the rapid expansion of many common outlets. Sam was not only known for his business acumen--he was also a tremendously generous philanthropist. He helped found the L. S. Skaggs Pharmacy Institute at the University of Utah College of Pharmacy to provide students and future students of pharmacy to excel. He also made a generous contribution to fund the Special Collections Section of Brigham Young University's Harold B. Lee Library. His family's ALSAM Foundation has helped many Catholic charities which were close to his heart. He donated the Skaggs Catholic Center, a 57-acre complex that houses Juan Diego Catholic High School, John the Baptist Elementary and Middle School, and the Guardian of Angel Daycare. Galey Colosimo, principal of Juan Diego High School, had this to say about his passing: ``It is a sad day, but we remember him with gratitude for all he has done for us.'' Sam also served his country and left his studies at Utah's Westminster College to enlist in the Army in World War II. It has been said that it was during his days of military service that he witnessed many acts of compassion by Roman Catholic chaplains, which led to his conversion to the Catholic Church and prompted many of his kind acts of service and generosity. I am grateful that Utah was home to this great business and philanthropic leader. He was a good man, and a true neighbor and friend to many. His memory will live on through the success of the businesses he led and most significantly through the generosity he exhibited to so many wonderful and worthwhile causes that he loved.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, as the Senate continues to debate the first budget resolution in more than 4 years, I am struck not only by the things we know about the Democrats' budget but also the things we don't know. For example, we know the budget would increase our debt by nearly $7 trillion over 10 years and it would continue on an upward trajectory thereafter. What we don't know is how, while amassing all that debt, our Nation will be able to respond to unforeseeable crises and emergencies in the future. In addition, we know the budget does next to nothing to address our runaway entitlement spending. What we don't know is how programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security would survive over the long term if this budget were to be followed. Finally, we know this budget includes as much as $1.5 trillion in new taxes. What we don't know is where all that revenue will be coming from. Last week before the budget was released I came to the floor to speak about the rumors the Democratic budget would include reconciliation instructions with regard to taxes. The concern I expressed at that time was the budget would instruct the Finance Committee to close so-called tax loopholes in order to raise revenue and this would, in effect, end ongoing bipartisan efforts on tax reform. As it turns out, my fears were not unfounded. Specifically this budget instructs the Finance Committee to find nearly $1 trillion in new revenues to pay for additional spending. The deadline under these instructions would be October 1 of this year. That clashes directly with the schedule Chairman Baucus and I have set out for bipartisan tax reform deliberations in the Finance Committee. This budget would instruct the committee to set aside those reform efforts and, instead, comb through the Tax Code looking for new revenues. In addition, this budget includes deficit-neutral reserve funds and sequester replacement which total more than $500 billion. According to the Budget Committee, this new spending would be paid for by closing so-called tax loopholes for the wealthy and corporations. In addition to the $1 trillion in reconciliation instructions, this budget includes potential for another half trillion in new taxes. This means up to $1.5 trillion in fresh taxes from this budget will be used to expand our already bloated Federal Government. The budget repeats the common refrain we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that our Tax Code is so full of so-called loopholes which benefit only the wealthy. According to their arguments, these loopholes may be closed at any time to generate untold amounts of revenue without affecting the middle class or our economy. During last week's Budget Committee markup, the chairwoman claimed they could hit their revenue target by ``closing loopholes and cutting unfair spending in the Tax Code for those who need it the least.'' This statement is simply incorrect. First of all, a loophole is something created by accident or carelessness which is then exploited. When my colleagues talk about loopholes, they aren't talking about backdoors created unintentionally or sneaky abuses of the Tax Code, they are talking about tax expenditures, all of which were deliberately placed into the Code for specific reasons. More often than not my Democratic colleagues use the term ``loophole'' to describe items in the Tax Code they don't like. This doesn't make the label any more honest. Earlier this week one of my friends on the other side of the aisle took this rhetoric about loopholes up a notch. He described the Tax Code as this treasure trove of special deals and earmarks for the rich and well-connected. He went further by saying, We are at the place where the lobbyists wield the sweet corporate tax deals. He blamed Republicans for this, arguing we were responsible for the existence of these so-called loopholes and earmarks. Admittedly there are some narrow provisions in the Tax Code--too many, if you ask me. There are supporters of these provisions on both sides of the aisle. Let's be honest. There aren't any real loopholes in the Tax Code, nor are there any earmarks. There are simply tax expenditures. If you look at a list of the largest tax expenditures, you will find a number of deductions and preferences which disproportionately benefit the middle class, middle-income taxpayers. That being the case, if my colleagues want to raise significant amounts of revenue by eliminating tax expenditures, they will have to do so by raising taxes on the middle class. Look at this chart. If you look at this chart, you will see the revenue targets in the Democratic budget. First up, there is $975 billion right near the reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee. Below that are additional revenues included in this budget. As I have mentioned, all told, if you include the specified revenue target for reconciliation and potential increases elsewhere, the budget may include more than $1.5 trillion in tax increases. Look at this. Next we have a list of all the tax increases Senate Democrats have voted for over the last 2 years, including the elimination of tax breaks for oil and gas companies, increased taxes for carried interest and the so-called Buffett rule. All told, these tax hike proposals could raise about $108.3 billion in new revenues. At the bottom we see the difference between that number, the tax increases which Senate Democrats have actually voted for and the potential tax hikes which are included in the budget. As I said, we can give the Democrats credit for having identified about $108 billion in tax increases they support, but that would mean there is as much as $1.4 trillion in unidentified tax increases in this budget. How would they reach their target? The budget doesn't spell it out. It leaves more than enough room to speculate. For example, you might simply think they would adopt the idea from President Obama's past budgets to cap itemized deductions for higher income earners at 28 percent. This seems unlikely for two reasons. First, to date very few Democrats in the Senate have come out in favor of that proposal. Indeed, it would impact things such as charitable contributions and pension deferrals which most have been unwilling to change. Second, and more important, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, that proposal would generate only about $423 billion in new revenues over 10 years, which would leave my colleagues about $1 trillion short of their revenue goal. Still, I can't help but wonder if the tide has shifted with regard to this proposal. With the Senate budget staking so much on the elimination of so- called loopholes, it will be interesting to see how many Democrats shift positions and endorse the President's proposal, even though it will not yield nearly enough revenue to reach the targets outlined in this budget. Staying in the world of capping itemized deductions, there is also the proposal outlined by CBO in 2011 to cap all itemized deductions for all taxpayers at 15 percent. This would effectively raise taxes on every tax filer in every bracket who itemized their deductions. Make no mistake. This would be a tax increase on the middle class, meaning it would violate the promises made by President Obama and other Democrats to protect the middle class from further tax increases. However, it would also generate enough revenue to be in the neighborhood of what the Democrats have outlined in their budget. All told, this proposal would, according to CBO, raise about $1.2 trillion in revenue over 10 years. Given the outlandish revenue proposal in the budget, this idea, while punitive and damaging to the middle class, can't be ruled out entirely. I have another chart here which lists the top 10 tax expenditures according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. These 10 items account for 71 percent of what Democrats have called spending in the Tax Code. What is No. 1 on this list? I will give you a hint. It is not corporate jet depreciation or carried interest. No, it is the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health care. Do you want to do away with that? What is No. 2 on the list? It is the tax-deferred benefit for retired savings plans. How about No. 3? It is the measure which provides relief against double taxation on investments. I am referring to the reduced rate on long-term capital gains and dividends. This rate went up recently. It was raised by 59 percent in the fiscal cliff bill. Raising it even more is a sure-fire recipe for job destruction and even slower economic growth. No. 4 is the deduction for State and local taxes. No. 5 is the home mortgage interest deduction. Do you want to do away with that? No. 6 is the tax-free treatment of Medicare benefits. So far I don't see a lot of expenditures aimed solely at benefiting the wealthy. No, most of these provisions benefit a significant number of middle-income taxpayers or earners. Three of the four next items on the list are refundable, meaning the person filing the return can receive a check even if they owe no income tax. This is truly where there is spending in the Tax Code. These provisions exclusively benefit lower and middle-income earners. They are not available to those making over $200,000 a year. The point is not simply there are a lot of popular tax expenditures. I think people know that already. No, my point is, given the difference between the revenue target in the Democrats' budget and the tax increases they supported on the record, there is no telling how they plan to actually raise their revenue. If they are serious about closing so-called loopholes to the tune of over $1 trillion, this list is where the real money is. If we are talking about raising that kind of revenue by eliminating tax expenditures, we are necessarily talking about provisions which benefit the middle class. It can't be raised through eliminating tax breaks for oil companies. It can't be raised by instituting the Buffett rule. It can't be raised even by eliminating all itemized deductions for millionaires. I am sure my colleagues will disagree with this assessment. However, the burden is on them to show where I am wrong, and they can't. This is their budget and their revenue target. If they want this budget to be taken seriously, the Democrats should come out and state specifically their plan for raising their $1.5 trillion in additional revenue. You can't simply say: We want the Finance Committee to figure out how to raise taxes by another $1 trillion to finance our spending spree. That is irresponsible and, as I said, it poisons the well for fundamental tax reform. You can't simply say: We want to turn off almost half a trillion dollars of sequestration spending cuts, but we won't say how we will pay for it. This is irresponsible and misleading to the American public. Finally, I wish to point out the budget would also mark a significant shift in the position held by many Democrats with regard to corporate taxes. The Obama administration has repeatedly expressed support for approaching corporate tax reform in a revenue-neutral manner. Prominent Democrats on the Finance Committee have also publicly expressed support for revenue-neutral corporate tax reform in order to make America more globally competitive. However, the Democrats' budget states: Eliminating loopholes and cutting unfair spending in the Tax Code for the biggest corporations must be a significant element of a balanced and responsible deficit reduction plan. You cannot have it both ways. Revenue-neutral corporate tax reform means paring back corporate tax expenditures and lowering the corporate tax rate. Revenue-neutral corporate tax reform does not mean, and cannot mean, eliminating tax expenditures which some Members don't like because it polls well, and then using some or all of the resulting revenue gain to further expand the government. This is not tax reform of any kind, this is a tax hike pure and simple. I would be interested to find out whether the Democrats who have publicly expressed support for revenue-neutral tax reform will support this budget. More generally, I wish to know where the Democrats stand on corporate taxes. Do they want to raise them, or do they want to make American companies more globally competitive? I hope it is the latter. You cannot do both. When you look at the tax provisions of the Senate budget, it is clear it is nothing more than a political document. I suspect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know they cannot hit their revenue targets without impacting the middle class. I think they also know we can't do revenue-neutral corporate tax reform and at the same time raise more tax revenue from the corporate sector. I think they know that in real-world terms, the tax provisions of this budget are several bridges too far. So in the end, I have to assume there is a political calculation being made. My colleagues apparently believe it makes good political sense to talk about reducing the deficit on the backs of the wealthy and less popular corporations rather than making difficult choices on spending. The American people need a real blueprint for our Nation's fiscal future, not more talking points. Once again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this budget. Now I wish to take just a few seconds to talk about one of the budget amendments I expect will be discussed and considered on the floor. I understand it is described as an amendment to ``establish a deficit neutral reserve fund to allow States to collect sales and use taxes already owed under State law.'' This amendment is intended to be a proxy vote for a bill called the Marketplace Fairness Act. I greatly appreciate the diligent efforts of the supporters of this bill, including Senators Enzi and Alexander. Clearly, a lot of work has gone into this legislation. However, over the last few months, I have been on the floor several times to talk about the importance of restoring regular order in the Senate. The Marketplace Fairness Act has been referred to the Finance Committee. Both Chairman Baucus and I have the view that legislation is more properly considered within the context of the committee's current bipartisan efforts on tax reform. However one feels regarding this amendment, it is undeniable that the Marketplace Fairness Act is controversial and that concerns about and suggestions for the legislation have been raised by many stakeholders. I have met with many people on both sides of the Marketplace Fairness Act, including people from Utah, and have heard many concerns. I am not here to take a position on the substance of this legislation, only to note that it deserves to be fully debated in committee and I am concerned this amendment might not allow those debates to occur. For this reason, I intend to vote no on this amendment at this time. What I have said is extremely important. It is not partisan. It is pointing out these doggone problems with this bill, and I hope my friends on the other side will start looking at things such as this. Because we can play politics with these things all day long, but that doesn't make it right and it doesn't make it so we can do what my friends on the other side would like to do, which is raise revenue so they can spend more. It boggles my mind. We have to find some way of living within our means in this country. If we don't, we are creating a new generation of debtors--our children, our grandchildren, and in many cases--in my case--great-grandchildren as well. It is the debtor generation now. Every one of them owes well over $50,000 personally, and that is going to go up exponentially if we don't watch what we are doing. In fact, even if we do watch what we are doing, it is still going to go up. But we have to do everything in our power to give them a future. The debtor generation is all those who are less than 50 years of age but especially our youth. We simply can't barter away their future because we don't have the guts to stand up and do what is right. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words in support of amendment 156 offered by Senator Grassley and myself. This amendment would strike the tax reconciliation instructions from the budget and, instead, create a deficit neutral reserve fund for pro- growth, revenue-neutral tax reform. The American people have had it with our current tax code. It is too complex. It is overly burdensome. And, it is an impediment to economic growth and our global competitiveness. Members from both parties need to work together to reform our tax code to provide greater fairness and simplicity and to ensure that it encourages growth. In order to do that, we need to work at finding ways to broaden the tax base in order to lower the marginal tax rates. That is how we encourage economic growth. That is how we create jobs. For the first time in many years, there is bipartisan agreement in both the House and Senate on the need to move forward on tax reform. Unfortunately, rather than letting those efforts move forward, the budget before us today would hijack those efforts. Under this budget, the Finance Committee would be instructed to scour the tax code in search of nearly $1 trillion in new revenues in order to pay for new spending. It is bad enough that this budget would greatly increase our Nation's debt. And, it is bad enough that it doesn't balance at any point. But, to add massive tax increases on top of that is simply unconscionable. As I said this afternoon, more than 70 percent of the revenue loss due to tax expenditures comes from the top 10 tax expenditures, most of which predominantly benefit the middle class. As Senator Grassley stated last night, the top 20 tax expenditures-- which also greatly benefit the middle class--account for 90 percent of the revenue loss. So, as we can see, we simply cannot generate a significant amount of revenue--certainly not in the magnitude imagined under this budget-- without negatively impacting the middle class. I hope my colleagues will reject this attempt to once again raise taxes on the American people. Toward that end, I hope they will support our amendment. I will recap quickly. The Grassley-Hatch amendment assures tax reform will travel on a bipartisan path. It corrects the partisan process in the budget with an elimination of reconciliation. That is all it does, and we ought to all support it.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what we want to do is repeal the $30 billion costly medical device tax. It is a gross tax on these businesses. We have already lost 5,000 jobs and we will lose 46,000 more. I hope everybody will vote for this.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to set the record straight. Amendment No. 432, which characterizes the House budget plan as a plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program, is patently false. This amendment is not trying to voucherize Medicare. That is not true. I think it is ironic that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle attack the House budget proposal when the Affordable Care Act took $716 billion from the bankrupt Medicare Program to create an unsustainable new entitlement. In no way can the House budget be considered as turning Medicare into a voucher program, and we reject the characterization of amendment No. 432. The House budget proposal draws from bipartisan proposals put forth by the Breaux-Thomas Medicare Commission, President Bill Clinton, and Domenici-Rivlin. We are prepared to take the amendment. We will be happy to take it by unanimous consent.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, our national debt currently stands at nearly $17 trillion. It is difficult to believe it has reached that level. What is more difficult to believe is that there is anyone in this country who can look at that number and not feel a sense of urgency to address our Nation's spending and debt problems. Yet, as we begin to debate the first budget resolution in over 4 years, it seems there are many in this very Chamber who seem to think the size of our debt is no big deal. If you take a good look at the budget we are debating this week, there is really no other conclusion to draw. The raw overall numbers make a pretty convincing case that the authors of this budget see no real need to change course when it comes to our debt. The budget before us maintains our current unsustainable spending and debt trajectory. It doesn't balance, not at any point. Its goal is to grow government, not jobs and the economy. Under this budget, the national debt would increase by more than $7 trillion over the 10-year window; that is, if we are lucky. In 2023 the debt would be over $24 trillion and rising rapidly. How can anyone bring a budget such as this to the floor--one that massively increases our debt without even a faint attempt to reach balance at any time--and claim to be fiscally responsible? But that is not all. I haven't even gotten to the worst part yet. True enough, this budget will do some pretty irresponsible things, but the real story is what this budget doesn't do. Everyone knows the main drivers of our national debt are our entitlement programs--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That fact has been confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office, the programs' boards of trustees, and every serious economist or analyst who has spent longer than 5 minutes looking over our Nation's finances. Over the next 10 years, we will spend $6.8 trillion on Medicare, $4.4 trillion on Medicaid, and $11.2 trillion on Social Security, for a combined total of $22.4 trillion. That is trillion with a ``t.'' Medicare by itself is extremely problematic. While the percentage of workers paying into Medicare has been in decline for over a decade, 10,000 seniors join the program each and every day. According to the budget we are debating this week, Medicare will account for $504 billion this year alone. Now, that comes out to about $1.4 billion a day. Over the next 10 years, Medicare spending will increase by over 70 percent, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission's most recent report. By the end of that time, we will be spending more every year on Medicare than on our entire national defense. Even President Obama, who has generally been reticent to consider real changes to Medicare, has admitted that absent reform, the program will be bankrupt within 10 years. The story is not any better with Medicaid. In 2013, once again according to the very budget we are debating, Federal spending on Medicaid will account for about $265 billion, and if you include what States are spending on Medicaid, that is $450 billion. That is $1.2 billion a day for just this one program. Over the next 10 years, Federal Medicaid spending as a share of the U.S. economy is set to grow by 37 percent, according to OMB. By 2020, 84 million people--nearly one out of every four Americans--will be dependent on Medicaid. With Social Security, we have a problem, facing more than $20 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the long term. In the short term, the disability insurance trust fund within Social Security is projected to be exhausted by 2016. That means that in about 3 years, the disability insurance benefits will, by law, have to be cut by 21 percent. All combined Social Security trust funds will be exhausted by 2033, at which time all Social Security benefits will have to be cut by 25 percent. So it isn't just that we are spending a lot of money on these programs, it is that these programs are structurally unsustainable. That is why the Director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has referred to our health care entitlements as our ``fundamental fiscal challenge.'' It is why the Social Security Board of Trustees, which includes a number of high-ranking officials in the Obama administration, has said with regard to Social Security that ``legislative action is needed as soon as possible.'' Entitlement reform is not an option, it is a necessity. It is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of math. America's social safety net is coming apart at the seams, and if these programs are going to be there for future generations, they need serious structural reforms. If we do that now, it will be much easier than if we wait too much longer. This isn't new information. It isn't privileged or classified. Anyone paying attention to our Nation's fiscal situation is aware these challenges exist. So what do the authors of the Senate budget propose that we do about it? The answer, unfortunately, is nothing. Here is a perfect illustration--the Murray budget entitlement plan. We are going to have $22.4 trillion at the end of 10 years. Well, let me just say for a second that if you look at that chart, you will see, as I have stated, that we are projected to spend a total of $22.4 trillion on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security over the next 10 years. That is the red bar on the chart. All total, the Democrats' budget would reduce Medicare spending by $46 billion and spending on Medicaid by $10 billion. It would make no changes whatsoever to Social Security. Adding those numbers together, the Democrats would reduce entitlement spending by only $56 billion over the next 10 years or by 0.2 percent. That is the yellow bar, if you can see it, right here on the chart. You heard that right, Madam President. The budget resolution before us would reduce entitlement spending by two-tenths of 1 percent over the 10-year budget window. Here is the Murray entitlement spending versus the baseline. If you look at this next chart, you can see the path in entitlement spending over the next 10 years in blue. It is the upper line here. That is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security spending, all combined, with no changes to our budget. The Murray budget spending path for entitlements is in red. It is this little sliver right here. That is the Murray budget. See the difference? The answer, of course, is that you cannot. Put simply, this budget ignores our unsustainable entitlement spending and allows it to continue on a path that will bankrupt these programs. The Democratic majority has opted to continue to look the other way as our entitlement programs collapse under their own weight. This is simply irresponsible, and it is an insult to middle-class Americans who rely on these programs and want to keep them protected. In January 2009, President Obama, when speaking on entitlements, said: . . . what we have done is kick this can down the road. We're now at the end of the road, and we're not in a position to kick it even further. With this budget, the Democrats are refusing to even acknowledge that there is even a can that needs to be kicked. The budget doesn't even pay lipservice to the need for reforms in our entitlement spending. It ignores the problem entirely. Indeed, if you read the documents accompanying this resolution, you will find nothing even suggesting there are any problems with these programs. Instead, you will find a multitude of statements accusing Republicans of wanting to ``weaken'' Social Security, ``dismantle Medicare,'' or make ``Draconian cuts to Medicaid.'' There is a lot of talk about keeping promises but literally no mention of how these promises can or will be paid for. And there is no recognition that this budget sets in place benefit cuts of over 20 percent for disabled American workers in a few short years, while watching other threads of the social safety net fray as trust funds become exhausted. Anyone supporting this budget will be sending a clear message to younger generations of Americans, which is that they don't really care whether the safety net will be there for them. This budget is further evidence of what has become a key difference between Republicans and Democrats. Over the last 2 years, Republicans have united around the principle of entitlement reform. We put forward plans that make tough, and sometimes politically difficult, decisions in order to preserve programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security for future generations. Republicans haven't chosen this path out of political convenience, that is for sure. This is simply what the reality of our fiscal situation demands. Rather than acknowledging this same reality, Democrats have opted to attack and vilify any Republican who even suggests that changes to these programs are necessary. They have continued the same talking points of the past, claiming that all of our Nation's fiscal problems can be solved simply by asking the so- called rich to pay a little more in taxes. All the while, according to Democrats, there do not need to be any substantive changes to entitlements. They have pursued this course even as our debts continue to mount along with the evidence that suggests their approach simply is not working. The budget we are debating this week is proof not only that the Democrats are more interested in politics than solutions but also that their policies simply won't work in the real world. This budget would do all the things Democrats say they want to do to grow the government. It would raise taxes by as much as $1.5 trillion. And, once again, it would leave Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security just as they are. Yet, in the end, this budget never balances. Under this budget, our Nation's debt would continue to grow, making it more difficult to respond to real crises or emergencies in the future. In the end, our entitlement programs would continue on their path to bankruptcy, and we would end up with an even bigger government that we cannot pay for. The Washington Post editorial page, not typically known for being overly critical of the Democrats' policies, assessed this budget, saying: Partisan in tone, and complacent in substance, [the budget] scores points against Republicans and reassures the party's liberal base--but deepens these senators' commitment to an unsustainable policy agenda. The editorial concluded by saying that this budget . . . gives voters no reason to believe that Democrats have a viable plan for--or even a responsible public assessment of--the country's long-term fiscal predicament. I couldn't have said it better myself. The American people have waited for over 4 years for the Senate Democrats to produce a budget. After all that time, we now finally have on paper their blueprint for America's future. Unfortunately for the American people, the blueprint does not address our Nation's most pressing fiscal challenges. Instead, it would continue an unsustainable status quo in terms of both policy and politics. This budget will not grow the economy and jobs; it will grow the Federal Government. This budget will never attain balance; it just taxes more and spends more. This budget will not reduce our debt; it buries the middle class even further in debt. This budget will not preserve the safety net for future generations; it allows entitlement programs to perish. That being the case, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this budget and demand a more responsible plan for our country. We need to do better around here. Admittedly, we need to have both parties working together. We used to do that. I used to be part of that; I wouldn't mind being part of that again. But we have got to find some way of getting together and getting these fiscal problems under control. We can't continue to grow the Federal Government, and we can't continue to ignore the structural defects of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare that are eating us alive and are going to really eat us alive over the next 10 years, and there isn't a thing in this budget that does anything to solve this problem. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, next week the Senate will, for the first time in over 4 years, debate a budget resolution on the Senate floor. While I have many qualms as to the substance of the budget we will be debating, I have to say that in terms of the process, this is a welcome development. The American people have waited too long for the Senate to fulfill its basic legal obligation to produce a budget every year. Yesterday, with the release of the Democrats' budget plan, that delay officially came to an end. Of course, now that I have had a chance to look over that budget, my praise for it ends there. The budget we will be debating next week is, to put it bluntly, a cynical political document. It is not designed to address our Nation's pressing fiscal challenges but, rather, it is to provide a Democratic base and have a fresh supply of political talking points. Rather than addressing our government's problems and runaway entitlements, the Democratic budget contains yet more wasteful spending. In order to pay for that spending, the budget contains what could be around $1.5 trillion in tax hikes, much of which will necessarily impact the middle class and small businesses. It would hijack the bipartisan tax reform efforts currently underway in both the House and Senate by instructing the Senate Finance Committee to abandon these efforts in order to scour the Tax Code for additional revenues to the tune of nearly $1 trillion. In addition to the reconciliation instructions, the budget includes potentially $\1/2\ trillion in additional tax hikes in order to replace the sequester and to offset more stimulus spending. Even with all of these new revenues in place, the Democratic budget does not balance--not at any point. Under this budget, the government would be still be spending more than it takes in at the end of the 10- year budget window. By the end of it all, our national debt would be over $24 trillion, an increase of more than $7 trillion, with no relief in sight. Gross debt, relative to the size of our economy, never dips below 94 percent in this budget. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warns, when the debt is that high, we as a Nation have less flexibility to respond to unexpected challenges. CBO also warns that when the debt is that high, there is increased risk of a fiscal crisis and soaring interest rates. Make no mistake: If interest rates rise even slightly more than assumed in this budget, Federal spending on interest payments would increase substantially, moving us even closer to a fiscal crisis. One of the most disappointing and disheartening parts of the budget produced by the majority in the Budget Committee is that it makes no attempt whatsoever to address entitlement spending. Instead, it would keep programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security on autopilot, making it far more difficult to preserve them for future generations. Let's take a look at the numbers, because they are astounding. Over the next 10 years, we will spend $6.8 trillion on Medicare, $5.9 trillion on Medicaid, and $11.2 trillion on Social Security, for a combined total of $24 trillion. The Democratic budget would reduce that spending by only $56 billion over 10 years, which amounts to a minuscule 0.2 percent reduction--that is right, 0.2 percent. Let's put that number in perspective. Despite the acknowledgment of the administration, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and any sane analyst on the Federal budget that entitlement spending is unsustainable, the Democratic budget proposes to do next to nothing about it. Rather, they settle for spending reductions over a 10-year period that amount to about 5 days' worth of Federal spending. This lack of attention to entitlements sends a clear message to younger generations. That message, unfortunately, is, we don't care that the social safety net will not be there for you. And it won't be for our young people, especially if we keep going this way. Federal entitlement spending is the biggest driver of our debts and deficits, and absent real structural reforms, these programs threaten to swallow up our government and take our economy down with it. This is not rhetoric or supposition. These are cold, hard facts. Yet, with their budget, the Democrats have apparently opted to ignore reality and let these programs continue on their current unsustainable trajectory. On that trajectory, the safety net frays. On that trajectory, disabled American workers face benefit cuts of over 20 percent in 2016. And on that trajectory, trust funds associated with the safety net become exhausted. The course charted by this budget is simply irresponsible. No one serious about governing would choose to ignore entitlement spending for another 10 years. Even President Obama--hardly a picture of bravery when it comes to taking on entitlements--has proposed as much as $530 billion in Medicare and Social Security reforms. This budget undercuts the President's proposal by nearly 90 percent. So once again this budget is not about dealing with reality; it is about politics, pure and simple. Instead of working with Republicans on bipartisan solutions to our Nation's problems, the Democrats have decided to reveal their campaign talking points for next year. There are some of us here in the Senate who have been looking for opportunities to work with those on the other side to address what are, in the view of many, the defining challenges of our time. For example, on January 1, I came to the floor to propose five bipartisan solutions to reform Medicare and Medicaid and asked my colleagues to work with me on this effort. These proposals are not my ideal solutions to the problems facing these programs. Instead, they are five solid ideas that have all had bipartisan support in the recent past. For example, I propose raising the Medicare eligibility age-- something President Obama and several other Democrats have at one time or another supported. I also suggest limiting Medigap plans from providing first-dollar coverage in order to prevent overutilization of Medicare benefits. This was supported by the Simpson-Bowles Commission and was also included in the Biden-Cantor fiscal negotiations in 2011. Another one of my proposals is to streamline cost-sharing for Medicare Part A and Part B. Like the Medigap proposal, this idea was also supported by the Simpson-Bowles Commission. In addition, I propose introducing competitive bidding into Medicare to allow for greater competition in order to reduce costs and improve quality of care. While some have deemed this idea controversial, President Clinton proposed a similar idea in 1999 as part of a major set of Medicare reforms--President Clinton, no less. Finally, I propose instituting per capita caps on Federal Medicaid spending. This was another Democratic Party idea. It was first proposed by President Clinton in 1995, and at that time all 46 Democratic Senators signed a letter supporting this very policy. I came to the floor in January in hopes that I could bring some of my Democratic colleagues on board with these proposals so we could at least start a bipartisan conversation on entitlement reform on the floor. My door and my mind remain open to my colleagues across the aisle on these ideas. Today, as I look at this proposed budget, it is clear I shouldn't be looking to anyone supporting this budget to work on anything resembling a bipartisan approach. Indeed, if this budget passes as is, without any significant changes, I may have to look outside of the Senate entirely. That is why earlier today I reached out to President Obama and asked him to seriously consider my five bipartisan entitlement reforms. The President talks a lot about grand bargains and balanced approaches, and he has a very winning personality, as was evidenced as he spoke to us Republican Senators today. The budget unveiled yesterday, however, is a step in the wrong direction. I hope he will demonstrate real leadership and engage in these enormous challenges in a meaningful way. The budget proposed by the Democrats on the Budget Committee is fiscally irresponsible and will be detrimental to the current and future generations of American workers who depend on the social safety net and who want to see it preserved for the future. This budget grows government, not the private economy. This budget taxes too much and spends too much. This budget doesn't balance today, tomorrow, or ever. This budget keeps us at the edge of a fiscal crisis, with no flexibility to respond to future emergencies. That being the case, this budget should be soundly rejected by anyone who cares about our Nation's future and about prosperity and opportunity for America's middle class.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, next week the Senate will for the first time in over 4 years----

Mr. HATCH. I am sorry, I thought we were in morning business.

Mr. HATCH. Approximately 15 minutes. Is that too long?

Mr. HATCH. I will withdraw.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is no secret that our Tax Code is in dire need of reform. Although there are differences of opinion about how best to fix our Tax Code, I do not think there is anyone in the Chamber who would argue in favor of keeping our current code as it is. As I have said before, I believe there is, for the first time in many years, real momentum to get something done on tax reform this year. The leaders of the tax-writing committees on both sides of the aisle have expressed a desire to move forward on tax reform, and there is real bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. This is going to be difficult, there is no question about it. It is going to be very hard to form and maintain a coalition in favor of a set of reforms that will simplify the current Tax Code and promote economic growth. It is going to take a lot of hard work and it is going to take people from both parties to get it done. But I think we can succeed. However, last week it was disheartening to hear the chairperson of the Senate Budget Committee talk about the possibility of including instructions for tax reform in a budget reconciliation package. This news was discouraging for a number of reasons. First and foremost, reconciliation, by its very nature, is a partisan process. In the few instances in recent history when reconciliation resulted in legislation, there was bipartisan support at the outset. That simply is not the case with this proposal. If the Budget Committee goes this route, it will needlessly inject partisanship into a process that, if it is going to have any chance of success, must be bipartisan. There is simply no way to pass a purely partisan tax reform package with the current makeup of Congress. Make no mistake, if the Senate majority pursues this course of action, it will poison the well for tax reform. It will make it all but impossible. I would urge my colleagues on the Budget Committee to resist this temptation. If they really want to see tax reform succeed, they should let the tax-writing committees in both the House and Senate do their jobs. Another concern I have is that the statements by the Budget Committee chairwoman make it unclear whether she is arguing in favor of tax reform or simply in favor of raising taxes. My suspicion is she is talking about the latter. It has become more and more common for my friends on the other side of the aisle to argue in favor of simply eliminating so-called tax loopholes in order to raise revenue and then calling the process ``tax reform.'' Indeed, the President used this very same tactic in the State of the Union. He stated his support for ``comprehensive tax reform,'' but he spoke almost exclusively about using the process to raise more revenue. Some of my colleagues have made similar arguments in the Senate. That is not tax reform at all. Tax reform, as it has been traditionally proposed and understood, is a process of eliminating certain preferences in order to broaden the tax base and lower the rates. This is how you simplify the Tax Code. This is how you make it more efficient and fair. Most importantly, it is how you make the Tax Code more conducive to economic growth. If you are eliminating select deductions and preferences only to pocket the revenue for future spending, you are not reforming the Tax Code, you are simply raising taxes. If the Budget Committee is about to report a budget which includes restrictions for tax reform, I can't help but assume the process will be more about raising revenues than it will be about actually fixing our broken tax system. Once again, if this is the case, the Budget Committee would be injecting partisanship into what has up to now been mostly a bipartisan effort. At the same time, they would be perpetuating the myth that our Tax Code is full of so-called loopholes which benefit only the rich. I have spoken about this at length on the Senate floor, but the message bears repeating. The term we hear most often to describe deductions and preferences in the Tax Code is ``tax expenditure,'' which implies that by allowing people to keep more of their money, the government is somehow engaging in spending. Indeed, the President has even gone so far as to refer to deductions and preferences, which reduce an individual's or business's tax burden, as ``spending in the tax code.'' As I said before, when many of my Democratic friends talk about tax reform, they are usually talking about eliminating these provisions in order to raise revenue so they can spend it. Far too often they refer to these provisions as loopholes. For example, the Budget Committee chairwoman was quoted last week as saying her committee is looking at closing loopholes as a means of reducing the deficit. Let me make one thing clear: Describing tax expenditures as loopholes is simply and deliberately inaccurate. A loophole is something Congress did not intend; and, in general, we would eliminate loopholes once we learned they were being improperly exploited. Tax expenditures, by contrast, are placed by Congress into the Tax Code deliberately. For example, the largest tax expenditure is the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance and benefits. Do we want to do away with that? Another one of the largest tax expenditures is the home mortgage interest deduction. Some would like to do away with that and millions would not--especially all the home builders around the country. Whether these expenditures benefit someone in the middle class or one of the so-called rich, they are not loopholes. These are not tax schemes some lawyer or accountant concocted to help his clients game that system. These are broad-based tax incentives used by many Americans. Favorable tax treatment of tuition expenses could be labeled spending through the Tax Code or a ``loophole,'' but you don't hear many people using those terms to explain them. Rather, my friends on the other side of the aisle use the term ``loophole'' to describe things they do not like and ``investment'' to describe things they do like. This is about picking winners and losers and not about tax reform. Even if you disagree with a particular tax expenditure, it is simply dishonest to refer to it as a loophole. An honest debate requires recognition that all of these tax expenditures were designed by Congress with economic or social goals in mind and are not tax escapes created by accident or sneaky abuses of the Tax Code. Furthermore, if we are talking about eliminating tax expenditures, we need to be clear about who benefits from them. If you look at the largest list of tax expenditures, you will find the ones most often cited by my colleagues on the other side, such as bonus depreciation on corporate jets or tax breaks for oil companies, are not among them. What you will find is a list of deductions which disproportionately benefit the middle class. This being the case, if my colleagues are serious about significantly reducing the deficit by eliminating deductions and so-called loopholes, they will necessarily be talking about raising taxes on the middle class. Indeed, if they only focus on those provisions which benefit the so-called rich, they will not be able to raise enough revenue to make a serious dent in the deficit. For example, let's take a look at the mortgage interest deduction. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, only 35 percent of the benefit of the mortgage interest deduction goes to taxpayers with incomes over $200,000 per year. The remaining 65 percent goes to taxpayers who make less than $200,000. By a ratio of almost 2 to 1, the mortgage interest deduction benefits the middle class, not the so- called rich. We may also look at the earned income tax credit, another large tax expenditure. This is another fully refundable tax credit, meaning taxpayers can receive it whether they pay income taxes or not. High- income earners receive no benefits from the earned income tax credit. The story is the same with the child tax credit, which is limited to lower and middle-income earners. None of it goes to taxpayers with higher incomes. Likewise, all education credits go to taxpayers making less than $200,000 a year. The list goes on and on. Deductions for real property taxes, medical expenses, childcare, and student loan interest, all of them predominantly, if not exclusively, benefit people making less than $200,000 a year. Benefits from some other large tax expenditures are distributed almost proportionately between higher and middle-income earners. One such provision is the State and local income and sales tax deduction. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation data, 55 percent of the benefit of this deduction goes to taxpayers making more than $200,000 a year, and 45 percent of the benefit goes to people making less than $200,000 a year. This expenditure accounts for about one-half of the revenue loss attributable to itemized deductions. Since the benefits are slightly more in favor of those with higher incomes, it would likely be a target for a ``tax reform'' exercise designed to raise revenue. However, much of the burden of limiting or eliminating this deduction would still fall on the middle class. It is also interesting to note that this past December the New York Times editorial page, which is usually very much in sync with the philosophy of the Democratic Party, recommended caution when considering limits to this particular deduction. Yet it is one of the largest tax expenditures in the country. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the New York Times editorial from December 6, 2012, entitled ``Keep the State Tax Deduction.'' [From the New York Times, Dec. 6, 2012] Keep the State Tax Deduction As they continue to wrangle over the year-end fiscal deadline, both Democrats and Republicans are considering caps on federal income-tax deductions. That could be very bad news for residents of New York, New Jersey and other states and cities that rely heavily on their own income taxes. Such a cap would reduce the value of the deduction for state and local income taxes, which has been part of the federal tax code for a century (though the deduction has been diluted by the alternative minimum tax). That could substantially reduce middle-class disposable incomes in high-tax states, which, in turn, would put pressure on those states to cut taxes and the services they have long chosen to provide. (A cap would also affect property and sales taxes, though those are spread around more evenly among all the states.) The theory behind the deduction was that the amount paid to states in taxes is not really part of an individual's disposable income, because it is obligatory and, therefore, should not be taxed twice. Over time, the deduction has become the equivalent of a subsidy from the federal government to states that believe in a strong and active government. That may infuriate conservatives in low-tax states like Texas, who hate subsidizing states with different views of government's role, but it's actually a good thing for the country. The deduction is Washington's way of supporting states that support their most vulnerable citizens and neediest cities. The seven states that account for 90 percent of state and local tax deductions (including sales and property taxes)-- New York, New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Illinois and Massachusetts--generally do a better job of providing for the health and welfare of their citizens, and are more willing to pay for institutions that are good for society as a whole. Rapid-transit systems in states like New York and Massachusetts, subsidized with tax dollars, save energy and improve the environment. Few cities can afford to operate their own universities, but the City University of New York, also subsidized with tax dollars, is an enormously valuable institution with national benefits. Public hospital systems and generous Medicaid programs have improved and extended the lives of tens of millions of low-income people. Texas is proud not to have an income tax, but it also has by far the highest percentage of uninsured people in the country. It ranks last in prenatal care as well and in overall federal assessment of health quality. In their fiscal-cliff offer, Republicans have proposed raising $800 billion by capping deductions for the wealthy, though their proposal would inevitably affect the middle class in expensive states like New York and California. President Obama would prefer to raise tax rates, but he has also proposed deduction limits that would affect states that have chosen to impose higher income taxes. Governors, mayors and representatives of those states need to make their voices heard in support of that choice. Once again, when my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about eliminating so-called loopholes for the sole purpose of raising revenue, they are either talking about raising taxes on the middle class or they are proposing changes which will have no meaningful impact on the deficit at all. If the goal is to construct political talking points and raise relatively significant amounts of revenue by going after politically convenient targets--jet owners, oil companies, private equity firms, and the like--you may do this by eliminating a handful of so-called loopholes. This isn't the stated goal of the President, nor is it what my colleagues on the Budget Committee talk about when they say they want to pursue ``tax reform'' through reconciliation. No, instead they talk about reducing deficits, debt, and attaining fiscal sustainability. They cannot do this by focusing efforts on tax provisions which only benefit the wealthy. The money simply isn't there. If we are not going to cut spending, and if our deficit reduction efforts are focused only on eliminating so-called tax loopholes, then the middle class happens to be the target. We need a different approach. We need tax reform which focuses on eliminating preferences in the Tax Code--not for the purpose of raising taxes but for lowering the rates and encouraging economic growth. Unlike the idea of tax reform advanced by some of my friends on the other side, this will benefit the middle class. This is what tax reform is all about. Anyone talking about raising taxes or closing loopholes for the sole purpose of generating revenue is not talking about tax reform. For these reasons, I hope the Budget Committee will go a different route. I hope they will let the bipartisan tax reform efforts underway in both the House and Senate run their course. If they don't, if they hijack the process in order to once again raise taxes on the American people and to vilify Republicans as being the ``party of the rich,'' we will not see tax reform happen this year or, quite likely, any year in the near future. Our Nation is facing a number of challenges. In addition to mounting debts and deficits, our economic recovery remains on a slow and tenuous path. We need people who are willing to make difficult choices in order to solve these problems. This will mean structural reforms to our entitlement programs, which are the main drivers of our debts. Once again, that will mean real, meaningful changes to our Tax Code, which continues to be an obstacle to sustainable economic growth. As I stated, I do believe there are people on both sides of the aisle who recognize these needs, particularly when it comes to tax reform. Sadly, there are also those who would rather campaign on these problems, attacking anyone who proposes real solutions while offering only political talking points in return. That is not what the American people deserve. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and express my great pride and admiration for the young men of the Lone Peak High School basketball team. On Saturday, March 2, 2013, Lone Peak won the Utah State High School basketball championship for the fifth time in 7 years. Now that alone is a great accomplishment. However, in addition to winning another State championship, the Lone Peak Knights are ranked as the best high school team in the country by the Web site Max Preps. This team has flown somewhat under the radar to achieve their top ranking. Indeed, not many people expected a team from Utah to dominate like they have. But the Knights have not shied away from competition. No, they have traveled around the country for the past couple of years playing some of the best high school basketball teams in the Nation. For example, this season they traveled to Chicago to play in the Chicago Elite Classic and defeated powerhouse Proviso East by a score of 84 to 46. Proviso East is currently 25 to 3 and undefeated in their Chicago conference. Lone Peak then played in the City of Palms Tournament in Ft. Meyers, FL, winning their first three games before suffering their only defeat of the season at the hands of Montverde Academy, which is another nationally ranked high school team. It needs to be said that there is a difference between Lone Peak and teams like Montverde. Lone Peak draws its students and players from within its school boundaries in Highland and Alpine, UT. Montverde is a college prep school that recruits players from all over the country to come and play basketball. Lone Peak again travelled out of the State of Utah this season and defeated Wesleyan Christian Academy--another private school that recruits basketball players--in the feature game at the Under Armor Brandon Jennings Invitational in Brookfield, MA. The Knights' final foray outside the State of Utah was in mid-January when they defeated Archbishop Mitty from San Jose, CA, at the Spaulding Hoopball Classic in Springfield, MA. That game was televised by ESPN and Lone Peak won by a decisive score of 81 to 46. This top-ranked team has been led by the trio of Nick Emery, Eric Mika, and T.J. Haws. But they are more than just three players. They are a full team that has worked together for many years under head coach Quincy Lewis. Now in his 10th year as the head coach at Lone Peak, Coach Lewis has a proven track record of leading his players, not only to victories on the basketball court but also to becoming fine young men in the community. Last week, before the Knights won the State championship, he was named the Naismith national coach of the year. I want to congratulate him on this honor. Another thing that is different about this team is that many of these young men will give up 2 years of their lives and serve missions for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Nick Emery has already received his mission call and will leave for Germany shortly after high school graduation. Talon Shumway has been recruited to play college football as a receiver but will serve a mission first. It takes a lot of faith and dedication to put such a promising career on hold for 2 years. Having served such a mission myself I know that there is no time for basketball or football when you are in the mission field. The Lone Peak Knights have finished the season as the top high school basketball team in the United States, something that has never been done by a school from the State of Utah. It might not be done again. But I have to say that there are young people all over my home State that have been inspired by this team and will want to follow in their footsteps. Once again, Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Lone Peak Knights on a wonderful season. It has been quite something to follow this story all season long, and I know that my admiration is shared by many throughout my State and, indeed, throughout the country. As I mentioned, the three leaders on this team get most of the headlines, but their success has really been a team effort and they all deserve recognition. In addition to Emery, Haws, and Mica, the Lone Peak roster includes the following players: McKay Webster, Connor Toolson, Zach Frampton, Brooks Goeckeritz, Chandler Goeckeritz, Talon Shumway, Braden Miles, Dylan Hedin, Braxton Bruni, Jantzen Allphin, Marcus Acton, and Spencer Curtis. Mr. President, the New York Times published an article by Dan Frosch last week that highlighted the achievements of these young men. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask that the colloquy between the distinguished Senator from Tennessee and myself be as in morning business.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today, along with my colleague from Tennessee, to discuss two pieces of legislation we introduced to restore liberty and to protect jobs. The first bill, S. 40, the American Liberty Restoration Act, would repeal ObamaCare's unconstitutional individual mandate. The second bill, S. 399, the American Job Protection Act, would repeal Obama's job-killing employer mandate. These two provisions were included in the President's health law for the purpose of raising revenues--an attempt to pay for all of the new spending under ObamaCare--and to garner support from the private insurance industry. I would ask Senator Alexander, has the so-called Affordable Care Act lived up to the promises President Obama made during the health care reform debate to maintain personal freedom, reduce health care costs, and decrease unemployment?

Mr. HATCH. I couldn't agree more with the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the Record an article under Politico's banner, titled: ``Under ACA, Employer Mandate Could Mean Fewer Jobs.''

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I agree with my colleague and thank him for his comments. I would also argue the individual mandate is unconstitutional. When the law was being debated here in Congress, and later when it was being litigated in the courts, proponents repeatedly argued the individual mandate was constitutional under the commerce clause. Well, that simply isn't the case. While the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the law on other grounds, the majority of Justices agreed the individual mandate was not a proper exercise of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. I have to say I agree with that conclusion. Indeed, I say it is simply common sense the power to regulate interstate commerce does not include the power to compel individuals to engage in commerce, which is precisely what the individual mandate does. Despite the Court's overall decision, the American people see the individual mandate for what it is--an affront to individual liberty. Indeed, the vast majority of the American people know it violates our constitutional principles and that it cedes too much power to the Federal Government. That is why, in poll after poll, the majority of Americans support repealing the mandate. I would also ask the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, to share his views about the individual mandate, if he has any additional views.

Mr. HATCH. I would say to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee that is certainly the case. There are various reports and analyses of this that indicate a significant number of employers would rather pay the penalty and not have to deal with the particular requirements the Affordable Care Act seems to require. On top of the unconstitutional individual mandate, this job-killing employer mandate is a real problem. Under the President's health law, employers with more than 50 full-time employees are required to offer coverage, as the distinguished Senator said, that meets a minimum value or pay a penalty of $2,000 per employee. The distinguished Senator from Tennessee explained this well. If the employer does offer coverage but that coverage does not meet the minimum value, employers must pay $3,000 per employee. I have never heard such a ridiculous approach toward business. Not surprisingly, the penalty under this provision costs less than offering coverage. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation annual survey of employer-sponsored health insurance, average annual premiums are $5,615 for single coverage and $15,745 for family coverage. Once again, the penalty for an employer who doesn't offer health insurance is only $2,000 per employee. That being the case, the law does not incentivize employers to offer the employees health insurance. Instead, it does exactly the opposite. Rather than footing the full cost of providing health coverage, many employers are going to take the less expensive route and simply pay the penalty, as the distinguished Senator from Tennessee has mentioned. Even worse, many employers that currently do offer their employees health benefits under current law will likely drop the benefits and, instead, choose to pay the penalty. Studies are already showing this is the case, and this will be the case. An employer survey done by McKinsey and Company found that ``30 percent of respondents who said their companies offered employer- sponsored health insurance said they would definitely or probably drop coverage in the years following 2014.'' So despite the President's claim to the contrary, ObamaCare has not preserved the employer-sponsored health insurance market. It dismantles it. As a result, the President's promise that those who like their health insurance would be able to keep it falls by the wayside. I believe Senator Alexander is also concerned about the fact the President's law defines small employers as those with less than 50 employees. In addition, I thought this law was supposed to create jobs. The President claimed it would. So again, I would turn to my colleague from Tennessee and ask: Does he think that has been the case? Does he think the President has been right about that?

Mr. HATCH. I have heard the same complaints by the restaurant industry, and by a lot of small businesses that are looking to not hire more than 50 people, and also are looking to cut their employees' work hours down to below 30 hours a week in order to avoid these massive costs that would incur to them. The employer mandate is a drag on our economy, forcing too many of our Nation's job creators to stop hiring and growing their businesses in order to comply with the onerous provision in the President's health law. Instead of letting the Federal Government dictate how employers should allocate resources, we should repeal this job-killing mandate and let businesses freely manage their personnel needs.

Mr. HATCH. Again, I thank my colleague from Tennessee for working with me on these two critical issues that impact every American. I will conclude with a quote from a Utah employer. This is a small business owner who is concerned about what the company will do come January 1 if these mandates remain in place. This employer wrote to me saying this about ObamaCare: We will have to choose who will work 30 or less hours a week, which in turn is bad for our business because we have to train more people to do one job. It is bad for our customers because they will have to interact with different employees who may not know the customer's needs as well, and it is most devastating for the employee because the employee's hours will be cut. If we want to turn this economy around, government decrees such as the employer mandate must be repealed. Our job creators cannot grow and innovate with these heavy-handed regulations coming from Washington bureaucrats who have no clue how to run a business. We must work together on this important issue for the sake of the individuals working three jobs at a time to make ends meet, for employers trying to keep workers on the payroll and contributing to the economy, and for our Nation as a whole to put our economy on the right track and to keep us globally competitive. At least that is my viewpoint, and it is certainly the viewpoint of my small business colleagues there in Utah.

Mr. HATCH. Once again I thank my colleague from Tennessee, and I am hoping that others will hear our call for support and join us in these two crucial efforts to protect individual freedom and to maintain our system of free enterprise which has built this country and made it the best in the world. So I thank the Senator from Tennessee. Correcting the Record