John Thune

Mr. THUNE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about the significant uncertainty surrounding sequestration and its threat to our economy. The Congressional Budget Office forecasted that the pending fiscal cliff facing this country; that is, the scheduled tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts that will result from the expiration of current tax policy and the enactment of sequestration, could lead to recession. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office said repeatedly that if the tax increases and sequestration occur at the end of this year, there will be a 1.3-percent economic contraction during the first quarter of 2013. I believe that would argue for extending the existing tax rates. I think the uncertainty associated with the tax rates perhaps expiring at the end of the year and businesses not knowing what is going to happen is creating a real problem and a real cloud out there in the economy. I believe it is important that there be economic certainty for people in this country, particularly for investors and small businesses. So it seems to me, at least, that getting those tax rates extended would be a very important part of the solution. Having said that, I also believe we need tax reform for this country. We need comprehensive tax reform that will fuel economic growth. I think there is enormous potential for economic growth and job creation if, in fact, we could get to overhauling our Tax Code in this country, making it more simple, more fair, more clear, and obviously lowering the rates and broadening the tax base. But until that happens, we need certainty, which means we need to get the existing tax rates extended. I hope we can do that sooner rather than later because I think the longer we wait, the greater we put at risk our economy and what could happen if we don't act. So that is one component of the fiscal cliff. Obviously, there are other components. Under the Budget Control Act, the spending authority of most Federal departments and agencies is going to be reduced on January 2, 2013, as a result of the sequestration. Now, the triggered reduction in spending is $1.2 trillion. After accounting for 18 percent in debt service savings, the required reductions amount to $984 billion to be distributed evenly over 9 years--in other words, $109.3 billion per year. So if we look at it year by year, that is $54.7 billion in reductions that will be necessary in both the defense and nondefense categories of the budget starting on January 2, 2013. It is expected that those cuts will range between 7 and 9 percent, but we believe the administration needs a plan for implementing sequestration, after a number of conflicting statements about how and if it will be carried out. As one example of the conflicting statements coming out of the Obama administration, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta sent a letter to Senator McCain last November saying that the sequestration would not impact war funding. In April the OMB Controller testified before the House Budget Committee that the issue of whether war funding would be reduced by the sequester was still being evaluated. Just last week another official from the Office of Management and Budget said that war funding would, in fact, be impacted by the sequester. It has been almost a full year since the Budget Control Act was passed, and Congress needs a precise understanding from this administration as to the full effects of sequestration on all programs and accounts across the Federal Government, including national security funding. That is why I have introduced a bill, along with Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions, that would require the administration to bring some much needed transparency to the scheduled across-the-board spending cuts. Our legislation, S. 3228, the Sequestration Transparency Act, would require the administration to submit to Congress a detailed preview of the sequestration required by the Budget Control Act. Specifically, this bill would require the President to submit a report to Congress by July 9--next month--of 2012 that includes an estimate of the sequestration percentages and amounts necessary to achieve the required reduction for each spending category on an account level. The administration's report would also be required to include any other data and explanations that enhance the public's understanding of a sequester and actions to be taken under it. This report will assist Congress in its yearend legislative business, including fiscal year 2013 appropriations and addressing the deep and unbalanced defense budget cuts that are expected under sequestration, which are in addition--in addition--to the $487 billion in reductions that were carried out last August. Of course, we would not be in this situation had the Senate passed a serious budget over the last 3 years that addressed tax and entitlement reform. The Senate's failure to produce a budget year after year has left us with the Budget Control Act. Now the Budget Control Act is the law of the land. While I am certainly disappointed that the President and the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction failed to reach an agreement to bring down our deficits in the long term, the cuts to national defense that are scheduled to go into effect are particularly troubling. The President's own Defense Secretary warned that the sequester would ``hollow out the force and inflict serious damage to our national defense.'' That is from the President's own Defense Secretary. Yet, after repeated requests from both the House and the Senate, the administration has refused to provide even the most basic details about the cuts required by the sequester. There is a great deal of uncertainty regarding sequestration and the tax increases that would occur the first of next year. At a time when our economy continues to grow at a very sluggish pace and unemployment remains above 8 percent, the last thing we need coming out of Washington is more uncertainty. Job creators are concerned about the pending fiscal cliff, and if Congress does not act before the election to deal with these issues, the economy will suffer from this uncertainty in the coming months. The legislation I have introduced, along with Senator Sessions, requires the administration to share with Congress and with the American people their plan for exactly how the sequestration will be carried out. This is straightforward legislation. It is about transparency, and it is something where I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work to ensure that these numbers--this sequestration plan--are shared with the Congress and with the American people. We have, as everybody knows, a big pileup occurring at the end of the year with sequestration. The pileup includes tax rate increases which will occur on marginal income tax rates, capital gains rates, dividend rates, the death taxes, the debt limit increase. All of these things happen at a time that will create incredible amounts of uncertainty in our economy. The best we can do for the American people, for our job creators, for investors, and for our small businesses is to provide as much certainty as is possible going into the end of this year. It seems to me, at least, that starts with ensuring that we have a plan coming out of the administration that specifically clarifies how this sequestration would be implemented so that Congress can react accordingly, hopefully before the end of the year and hopefully sometime in the next few months, perhaps as a part of our appropriations process this year. With regard to the tax increases, I would make the same argument that former President Bill Clinton has been making, which is that we need to extend these tax rates. We create too much economic uncertainty out there by having this cloud on the horizon, which I think is a real warning sign to us, and it is a reminder that we get on a regular basis--frankly, for the most part, on a daily basis--when we talk to small businesses in our home States about the importance of addressing the tax, the regulatory, the spending, and debt issues before the end of the year when this big pileup would occur. So I would argue for and plead with my colleagues to work together on the sequestration issue to ensure that it doesn't have the devastating impacts on our national security budget and that, combined with the tax increases, it doesn't have the devastating impact on our economy that is being predicted by the Congressional Budget Office. They have pointed out that if these things all happen at the end of the year, it could cost us 1.3 percent of economic growth, which, according to the President's own economic advisers, means about 1.3 million jobs for American workers. We already have chronic high unemployment now--40 consecutive months of unemployment above 8 percent. We have a sluggish, anemic economy. We shouldn't pile on top of that all this uncertainty with regard to taxes, with regard to regulations, with regard to what is going to happen regarding sequestration at the end of the year. Again, this bill simply does not address in substance how we would change that, but it merely requests and requires the administration to provide to the Congress and the American people a clear plan about how they intend to implement sequestration in hopes that we might be able to make some necessary changes to ensure that the defense budget isn't gutted and that these adverse impacts on the economy are not felt by the American people and by our small businesses. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and that we can get a vote on it very soon; that we can get the administration acting in a way that will inform not only us as Members of Congress but also the American public. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask to speak as in morning business.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a former Member of this body and my long-time friend and mentor, Senator Jim Abdnor of South Dakota. Senator Abdnor passed away last Wednesday, May 16, 2012, in South Dakota in the company of friends and family. We are both products of the dusty short-grass country just west of the Missouri River on the plains of central South Dakota. Jim was a product of the active and civically-minded political culture of Lyman County and I was from next door Jones County. Despite these counties' sports rivalries over the years, Jim took me under his wing and introduced me to the American political process. If not for Jim Abdnor, I would not be standing here today. After a basketball game when I was a freshman in high school, Jim struck up a conversation with me that would change the course of my life. I went to work for Jim as a legislative assistant when he was a Senator and later at the Small Business Administration. When I first ran for office, Jim's guidance and support were invaluable to me. This past weekend, hundreds of South Dakotans came out to honor Jim Abdnor and remember his great love for them and his state. His funeral was held in a Lutheran church in the shadow of the State capital in Pierre, where Jim first served in statewide office as Lieutenant Governor. Jim was buried just outside of his small hometown of Kennebec near where his immigrant father first homesteaded. Mr. President, Jim leaves us with many legacies and I want to mention a few of them here today. First and foremost, Jim's was an American story. It started as the tale of an immigrant who boarded a ship for the United States not even knowing the English language but knowing he was heading for the land of opportunity. That immigrant, Jim's father Sam Abdelnour, wanted to escape the growing authoritarianism of his native Lebanon, for American freedom. Jim's story is also a frontier story. His father Sam settled in Lyman County, South Dakota. Sam Abdnor became a homesteader and planted corn and wheat. He also peddled his wares to the other farmers in the area and when Kennebec was organized as a town, Sam was one of the first people to establish a business on main street. Jim grew up learning how to balance the books in a small town store and knowing how to work the family farm. He learned financial responsibility and hard work and how one can climb the ladder of success in America. Jim's story is also a story of the land and farming. Some of us who knew Jim through politics may forget that before he was elected to Congress Jim had owned and run the family farm for three decades. Jim was very proud of the fact that he was good at representing South Dakota agriculture because he was an active farmer who did the planting and hauled his grain to the elevator in the fall. When he was in Congress, South Dakota was ranked as the most agricultural state in the Nation and Jim was the first farmer elected to Congress from South Dakota. Jim was proud of that correlation and he never forgot his farming roots. During the 1970s, when people were organizing sit-ins and teach-ins and other protests, Jim helped organize a ``beef-in.'' He brought 100 West River ranchers to Washington, DC, to talk about farm issues. They set up pens of cattle on the Washington mall and met with agriculture officials. Jim didn't rest until these ranchers had their voices heard. Jim's story is also about water. We all live comfortably now with running water and hot showers, but that's not how Jim grew up. He grew up on his family's windy, dry-land farm in Lyman County. He lived through the droughts of the 1930s. He understood the importance of water. He never stopped working on the issues of water access-- including being a champion of the WEB water project in Walworth, Edmunds, and Brown counties in north central South Dakota that began in 1983. The question of water was never far from Jim's mind and I think it had something to do with his heritage. That's certainly true of his Lyman County roots, which is where the humid Midwest begins to turn into the arid High Plains, but also of his roots in Lebanon, where water is also scarce. His family's home village of Ain Arab was founded because it was a watering hole. Ain Arab literally means ``spring'' or ``well.'' More specifically, it means ``spring of the Arab.'' When they had enough water in Ain Arab they would grow wheat, just like the Abdnors would do out in Lyman County. Jim's is also a story about organizing. As soon as he came home from college, he started organizing Republicans in Lyman County and became head of the Lyman County Young Republicans. He helped organize and found the Elks lodge in Pierre in 1953. He joined every organization he could and he brought as many people into community affairs and politics and civic organizations as he could. Jim also pushed other people to organize. He liked to tell the story of the people in Faith, SD, who wanted a new grandstand at their rodeo grounds. They took one look at the Federal regulations involved with some grant program and promptly did everything themselves, raising all the money they needed from local sources and fundraisers and did it at 10 percent of the cost. They put in 4,000 hours of their own time and made it happen themselves and Jim appreciated that. He liked communities working together to solve their own problems. During the 1970s, when tensions in the Middle East worsened, Jim called for his fellow Arab-Americans to become more involved in the political process. He opposed what he saw as their tendency toward isolation and self-segregation. He said his ethnic compatriots should ``get out and mix.'' ``They should become more involved,'' he said, ``become part of the community.'' Jim never stopped believing in the importance of being involved and working with others to make life better. This is why Jim had so many friends. He never stopped working to meet people and bring them together around issues and simply to socialize. A friend of mine says that he doesn't think anyone in the State of South Dakota has ever attended more weddings, graduations, ceremonial dinners, or basketball, baseball, and football games than Jim. As someone from the wide open plains who wanted groups of people to come together to solve problems on their own, Jim was always resisting Federal encroachment on local control. As the son of a small businessman, Jim was sensitive to the growing encroachment of Federal regulations and how much this encroachment cost small businesses. For many years, Jim was especially incensed about OSHA mandating rules for small stores on South Dakota main streets. In the 1970s, Jim also had a big fight with OSHA because it was trying to mandate that South Dakota wheat farmers maintain porta-potties in the fields, which a practicing wheat farmer from Lyman County, South Dakota knew was the definition of absurd. As a small businessman and farmer, Jim was always worried about the bottom line and he constantly tried to apply these concerns in the area of the Federal budget. Jim was sounding the alarm bell in the 1970s when the Federal Government spent less than $400 billion a year, which today seems laughably small given our current state of affairs. Back then, he was attacking deficits of $70 billion. He was also adamantly opposed to the Federal Government bailing out New York City in the 1970s because he said it would set a bad precedent. He attacked a Federal debt ceiling limit of $500 billion as being highly irresponsible. He criticized the fact that each American owed $2,000 because of the Federal Government's debt. Jim liked to quote the editor of the Freeman Courier, who asked ``how can it be that a government which is unable to balance its own budget and lives far beyond its means, has the authority to tell a businessman'' how to run his business. Jim wasn't afraid to make hard votes to fix our problems, votes that probably cost him his Senate seat. But Jim Abdnor had the moral courage to make the tough decisions. Mr. President, Jim Abdnor leaves us with a critical reminder. He embodied the American dream. He was the son of a poor Lebanese peddler who built a successful business and raised a great family, including a son who ascended the heights of American politics and became a U.S. Senator. Jim Abdnor shows how hard work and diligence can pay off. On this occasion of remembrance and during this time of honoring my good friend Jim Abdnor, I hope we can remember our solemn duty to protect the American dream that the Abdnor family represented. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Heather Jelen, a legal intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past year. Heather is a graduate of Bethel University in Saint Paul, MN. Currently, she is attending George Washington University Law School in Washington, DC. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Heather for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. If the Senator will yield for a minute, I assume in Alabama and Missouri and I know in South Dakota our States pass budgets. It can be done. You can balance your budget. It would be nice if we had a requirement in the Constitution that would demand that the way many of our States do. Certainly, there doesn't seem to be the political will here to do it absent that. But it can be done, and hard decisions have to be made. South Dakota went through it last year, made some hard choices, our Governor, our legislature. Those are the types of hard decisions that are going to have to made here, but it takes a certain amount of political will and a willingness to make hard decisions. As the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Missouri have both pointed out, there doesn't seem to be the willingness here to make those hard votes. As has already been pointed out, the leader on the other side has said: What point is there in doing a budget? And the President of the United States and his folks, when they were asked whether the Senate ought to do a budget, said: Well, we don't have an opinion about that, which I think is really ironic coming from the leader of the free world about whether this country ought to have a budget to work with. But that being said, as our time winds down here, to argue, as our colleagues have, that we don't need one misses the point. The Parliamentarian has ruled that the Budget Control Act was, in fact, not a budget. We need to do a budget here in the Senate. More importantly, the American people expect it and the taxpayers deserve it. That is why we ought to be having a debate on what we are going to vote for today, not what we are going to vote against. It will be interesting to see if any of our colleagues on the other side vote for any of the budget proposals we put forward today, including the President of the United States; his budget will be voted on along with several other Republican budgets. I have a feeling we will be for some things. I have a feeling, as you said earlier, that they are not going to be for anything.

Mr. THUNE. I say to my colleague from Alabama, who is the ranking member on the Budget Committee, I got on the Budget Committee in this session of Congress and have been on it now for 2 years. We have not written a budget either year. So it sort of begs the question about whether the committee has any relevance around here anymore. But to the point about spending and debt--we get down here and we talk about it. I think it has been interesting. The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen--who up until several months ago held that position--would come in front of Congress, in front of congressional committees, and say the greatest threat to America's national security is our national debt. There are a lot of external threats the United States faces. The world continues to be a dangerous place, with al-Qaida and the Iranian nuclear capability and China and North Korea. You can go right down the list. But for the top ranking military official in this country to come before Congress and say the greatest threat to America's national security is our national debt speaks volumes about what our priority ought to be. To think that we here in the Senate now for over 1,100 days have not passed a budget is pretty stunning in light of that reality; and also to say that somehow, because the Budget Control Act last summer passed, we did not need a budget misses the point. The reason we had the Budget Control Act is because we did not pass a budget. The Budget Control Act is what you get when you do not pass a budget. You end up at the 11th hour having to put something together to deal with the issue of the debt limit, which is what we were dealing with at that time. It did put some caps on spending, but it does not do anything to deal with the long-term structural challenges facing this country, which is what a budget is designed to do. The President submitted a budget this year, which would suggest he thought we ought to be working on a budget. The chairman of the Budget Committee, as my colleagues have mentioned, even called a Budget Committee markup, where we went there and said: Bring amendments. We went, we brought amendments, and we gave opening statements. We gaveled it out and said we are not going to do it. So here we are again on the floor of the Senate without a budget, having to vote on other budgets presented by some of our colleagues, the House of Representatives, which passed a budget this year earlier, and the President's budget. To be fair, the President at least submitted a budget. It was a terrible budget if you are looking at the issues of spending and debt. In fact, I think the reason it got voted down 414 to nothing in the House of Representatives is because it added $11 trillion to the debt. It takes our total debt at the end of the 10- year period to $26 trillion and spends $47 trillion over the next 10 years and raises taxes by $2 trillion in a very fragile economy. It was a bad attempt, but at least it was an attempt. It was an attempt that yielded zero votes in the House of Representative, and it will be interesting to see if on the floor of the Senate today there will be any Democrats who will vote for their President's budget proposal. But the point the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Missouri make is a good one, and that is simply this: We have a responsibility under the law to spell out what we would do to get this country on a more sustainable fiscal path. That is something that is in the budget laws that the Senator from Alabama pointed out. Yet here we go on, year after year after year now--3 years in a row, over 1,100 days--without the Senate doing its job and passing a budget. That is significant for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is this is the fourth year in a row where we are going to have a trillion dollar deficit. Under this administration, you have the highest deficit, the second highest deficit, the third highest deficit, and the fourth highest deficit in history--4 consecutive years now of trillion dollar deficits. But we are concerned about the economy. We need the economy to get growing again, to expand, to create jobs. That helps address all these things. What is interesting about it--and I know both my colleagues on the floor are well aware of this--there is a lot of research that has been done with regard to developed countries that start carrying these high debt loads. All the analysis suggests when you get a debt-to-GDP ratio of more than 90 percent, it costs you about a point to a point and a half of economic growth every single year. Well, in our country, a percentage point of economic growth means a million jobs. So our debt to GDP--which is now over 100 percent--means it is draining our economy of economic growth and, therefore, lots of jobs. The Congressional Budget Office said about the President's budget, if his budget were to be enacted, it could cost us up to 2.2 percent of economic growth over the course of the next 10 years, which would amount to 2.2 million jobs. So we know the President's effort was not serious. He did at least put something out there. But we need a serious discussion in the Senate about a budget that will put us on a pathway not only to get spending and debt under control but to allow the economy to grow and expand and get Americans back to work. That is what is at stake here. That is why we believe we ought to have a budget. That is why we are going to have an exercise today where at least we get a chance to vote on some budgets as advanced by some of our colleagues in the House of Representatives as well as here in the Senate and the President's budget. The fact is, this is the third year in a row where we have not followed the law and gone through the process of getting a budget here on the floor of the Senate. For our colleagues on the other side to suggest it is not necessary simply because the Budget Control Act was passed last summer not only is inconsistent with the law, but it begs the point about why did the President submit his budget, why did they call a Budget Committee markup in the first place? Clearly, somebody around here thinks we ought to be doing our job. But we are not doing it. So I would hope, as we debate this issue today, at least we will put in front of the American people the arguments we think need to be made with regard to getting spending and debt under control, addressing the long-term, the mandatory side of the budget my colleague from Missouri, Senator Blunt, mentioned. That is where we know the money is. That is what nobody wants to deal with. We keep squeezing a little bit more out of the discretionary side of the budget. We have to take that on if we are going to save Social Security and Medicare and reform these entitlement programs. That is what a budget process would do. It does not take 60 votes under the law. It takes 51. To come down here and say Republicans will filibuster again is completely out of whack with what we know to be the facts around here and the law; that is, that it takes 51 votes to pass a budget and a reconciliation bill that could possibly follow. I appreciate the leadership of my colleague from Alabama as the ranking member on the Budget Committee. I look forward today, at least, for the chance for us to talk about a budget and what we ought to be doing for the future of this country since we do not have a budget on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in just 2 weeks, similar to many proud parents, I will be watching as my youngest daughter walks across the graduation stage. For some students, this important milestone marks the end of their college days and the beginning of a professional career. This achievement should be filled with hope for a great future, but for many it will be a story saddled with student loan debt and uncertainty about the economy, their job prospects, and their future. As I have listened to many of my Democratic colleagues discussing the extension of a special interest rate for the subsidized Stafford loans, I continue to hear false statements that would lead one to believe Republicans don't support extending this interest rate for students. This is simply not true. In my State of South Dakota, nearly 30,000 students received subsidized Stafford loans during the 2010 2011 school year. While I support alleviating financial pressure on students, I did not support the partisan legislation brought forward by Majority Leader Reid that would extend subsidized Stafford loans while raising taxes on some employers, not because the goal of the legislation is misguided but because the way the majority leader proposed to pay for the legislation is misguided. Majority Leader Reid's legislation, similar to its Republican counterpart, would extend the special rate of 3.4 percent for subsidized Stafford loans that existed for the 2011 2012 school year to the 2012 and 2013 school year. I agree with the extension of this special rate and would simply ask the majority leader to allow a vote on the Republican alternative, which I might add, passed the House of Representatives by a bipartisan vote on April 27. I voted against moving to the majority leader's bill because I disagree on two grounds with the way my Democratic colleagues proposed to pay for the temporary 1-year extension. First, I fundamentally disagree with the idea of a permanent tax increase on certain job creators to pay for a temporary 1-year extension. We are talking about permanent tax changes to pay for temporary spending. That is bad policy. I furthermore believe any discussion about raising taxes should be addressed in a comprehensive tax reform discussion, not in a student loan bill. Second, I disagree with diverting the payroll tax revenue away from the Medicare and Social Security trust funds, where it would ordinarily be directed. We saw this done during the health care bill a couple years ago, where Medicare reductions and revenue increases that were supposed to go to extend the lifespan of Medicare were, in fact, used to pay for new spending. We cannot continue to try to fool the American people that we are somehow extending the lifespan of Medicare when we are spending that money on new programs. We are essentially double counting revenue and spending the same money twice. We cannot do that. We cannot do that anywhere else in the country, in this economy. Yet in Washington, DC, that has become the practice. What this would do is take changes in the Tax Code that would ordinarily go into the payroll tax fund or Medicare trust fund and now that is going to be used to pay for something else. This is a practice we cannot continue; we cannot sustain. We all know our trust funds are headed toward bankruptcy and continuing to raid them and use them for other purposes is simply a recipe for disaster. I agree with the 37 business groups that wrote a letter to Leaders Reid and McConnell strongly opposing the $9 billion tax increase on small businesses proposed in the majority leader's legislation. These groups represent millions of employers, and they range from the National Federation of Independent Business to the Independent Community Bankers, to the National Restaurant Association. These 37 business groups all oppose the tax increases that would be included to pay to keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent. I believe there could be bipartisan support for a proposal that has been put forward by Senators Enzi and Alexander, who are both leaders on education policy in the Senate. They proposed an alternative that pays for a temporary 1-year extension of a 3.4-percent interest rate by taking money from a slush fund created by ObamaCare in 2010. The President and Democrats have supported taking money from the slush fund in the past, so it seems odd that now they are suddenly up in arms in support of a slush fund that is supposedly aimed at prevention. The President's own fiscal year 2013 budget proposal recommends using the prevention slush fund for other Federal priorities. My Democratic colleagues in the Senate supported taking $5 billion from the fund merely 11 weeks ago. So there is broad support for the idea of prevention, but the recent record of the use of prevention dollars shows these dollars are not being spent wisely. Funds in the prevention slush fund can be used on almost anything in the name of prevention and wellness. For example, jungle gyms, bike paths, farmers' markets, those are the types of things this so-called prevention slush fund is being used for. Keep in mind that in 2010, my Democratic colleagues used the $9 billion in savings in Federal student program aid to pay for part of ObamaCare instead of using that money to address the looming issue of the scheduled return to these higher interest rates on student loans. It only seems rational and fitting to use the money that came from the student loan industry to address the interest rates for subsidized Stafford loans. At least it strikes me as very logical that since these funds were diverted from the student aid fund in the first place to pay for ObamaCare, we ought to recapture some of those funds to help keep student loan interest rates at the lower 3.4 percent level. It is particularly interesting that the President suddenly has taken such a deep interest in this issue, when in 2007 he didn't even show up in the Senate to vote for the original legislation that created the temporary phased-down interest rate for subsidized Stafford loans. So despite the President's rhetoric, the greatest threat to young people looking for a job isn't the loan rates but the Obama economy. This year's crop of college students looking for jobs is confronting an economy in which unemployment has remained above 8 percent for 39 straight months. A recent Associated Press report found that one out of every two recent graduates is jobless or underemployed within 1 year of finishing school. Graduates who are lucky enough to find a job will earn 9 percent less than if they had graduated just a few years ago. A Gallup poll released this week gives even more bad news for young adults. According to Gallup, underemployment for 18- to 29-year-olds has hovered around 30 percent for most of the past year. Those graduates lucky enough to find employment are more likely to find jobs as waitresses and bartenders than as engineers, physicists, chemists, and mathematicians. On Tuesday, the President was out touting his to-do list for Congress. That is particularly interesting since the President had 3\1/ 2\ years to put policies in place that would strengthen the economy. Here is what our graduates are getting. Here is what that Obama economy has brought about: Long-term unemployment is up 89 percent; the number of Americans who are on food stamps is up 45 percent; gas prices have doubled; college tuition is up 25 percent; worker health insurance costs are up 23 percent; and the Federal debt we are passing on to future generations is up 47 percent. The only thing that has gone down on his watch is home values, which is down 14 percent. Our country and our college graduates have had enough of the Obama economy. Instead of the to-do list the President has put forward, we have a to-stop list for you. Stop job-killing regulations that are hurting our small businesses' ability to create jobs, stop trying to raise taxes on small businesses and job creators who are the people who are going to hire our college graduates, stop blocking the Keystone XL Pipeline which would help wean our country from the dependence we have on foreign sources of energy, and stop the divisive use of class warfare that does nothing but divide Americans. It is time for the President and Congress to come to the realization that we have to shift our focus away from election-year standoffs and come together to focus on changing the course of our lagging economy so we can once again put our young people back to work, which is the real objective that should be our focus. These other issues, which are a lot of campaign gimmicks, a lot of opportunities to politicize this issue or that issue, are counterproductive in the long run. The floor of the Senate is being used, it seems more and more these days, to make campaign points, political points, rather than to address the fundamental issues that are affecting Americans and our economy. I would hope we can come together to work in a constructive way on policies that will get Americans back to work, and that means doing something about these regulations which are crushing the ability of our small businesses to create jobs. We hear about it every single day. When I travel my State of South Dakota or elsewhere around the country, I hear from businesses, the people out there trying to create jobs, about regulations, about taxes, about the cost of things, their inputs going up. Those are the issues we ought to be addressing. We ought to figure out how to reform the Tax Code, how to reduce Federal spending and reform the entitlement programs so we can save Social Security and Medicare. We ought to look at what we can do to put in place a real all-the- above energy strategy that would help keep energy costs affordable for people out there creating jobs. In my view, those are the types of things on which we ought to be focusing. Frankly, we have seen a lot of action and activity in the other body, in the House of Representatives, many bills they have sent to the Senate that are small business bills that would address these very issues, such as the high cost of regulations, the issue of taxation, the issue of energy independence--all these things that we believe would lead us toward a stronger economy that would get Americans back to work and offer more opportunity to young people, to our college graduates as they emerge from their programs of study this year and in years to come. Yet we continue to have the rhetoric on the floor of the Senate suggesting that somehow Republicans are not in favor of keeping interest rates low for student loans. Think about that. It is illogical to even suggest that. However, we do have a fundamental difference of finance as to how we ought to pay for that. The other side suggests we could pay for that by raising taxes on people who create jobs. We believe we ought to go back and take the funds out of the prevention slush fund, which in the first place was created out of dollars that were allegedly saved when the Federal Government took over the student loan program, which happened as a part of ObamaCare. Not a lot of people realize that because it got buried in the whole debate over health care. The student loan program, which used to be administered out of private lenders where they originated and serviced the loans, has now been taken over by the government. In doing so, savings were counted that were then used to pay for the cost of the health care bill. So all we are simply doing is saying the slush fund that was created by the funds that supposedly were saved by moving the student loan program into the government ought to be used for student loan fund programs to actually keep the funds that ought to be used to fund keeping the interest rate low, down at 3.4 percent for college students today. As I said, it seems very fitting to me, very logical, and very intuitive that would be the way we would fund this. But to suggest for a minute that somehow Republicans in the Senate are not in favor of keeping interest rates at as low a rate as possible for our college students is completely missing the point. It is massive election-year politics, and I hope we can get away from that and focus on not only a solution in the near term with this issue but also the bigger issue. The bigger issue is the fact that I just mentioned, that literally one-half of all college students who are coming out are either not finding jobs or are underemployed. Those who are finding jobs are making significantly less than those who graduated just a few years ago. That is an economic problem. That is a problem that needs to be addressed not by simply having a debate about student loans but what we are going to do to get this economy growing again and get American businesses creating jobs. We need to make it less expensive and less difficult for American businesses to create jobs, not more expensive and more difficult, which is precisely what is happening as a result of the policies coming out of this administration in the form of regulations and many of the legislative initiatives that are coming out of the Congress or at least proposed to come out of the Senate. I wish to work with my colleagues on solutions that will put Americans back to work and give our college graduates greater opportunity, greater hopes for a higher standard of living and higher quality of life, something many of us have inherited from those who came before us. These opportunities are increasingly at risk and in jeopardy because of the amount of spending and the amount of debt and the policies coming out of Washington that are making it increasingly difficult for us to come out from underneath an economy that has anemic growth and chronic high unemployment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Cody Horton, an intern in my Sioux Falls, SD, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Cody is a graduate of Mitchell High School in Mitchell, SD. Currently, he is attending the University of South Dakota, where he is majoring in political science and history. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Cody for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Alyssa Hanisch, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Alyssa is a graduate of O'Gorman High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, she is attending the University of South Dakota, where she is studying political science and finance. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Alyssa for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Rachel Schmidt, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Rachel is a graduate of Marion High School, in Marion, SD. Currently, she is attending the University of South Dakota, where she is studying prelaw. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Rachel for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, in 2005 the European Union began their emissions trading scheme, which attempts to cap emissions of carbon dioxide from stationary sources within the EU. Starting in 2012, civil aviation operators departing from or landing in Europe began to be included in this emissions scheme. Under this program, any airline, including non-European airlines flying into and out of Europe, will be required to pay for EU emissions allowances. This change comes at a time when EU allowance prices continue to decline to a little over 6 euros, and the commission is considering proposals to drive up the prices. Allowances will be collected for the entirety of the flight, including portions in U.S. and international airspace. For example, this means a flight leaving from Los Angeles, CA, and flying to London would be taxed on the entirety of the flight, not just the fractional part of the flight that is over EU airspace. To put it another way, you would be taxed as if 100 percent of your flight was in EU airspace even though approximately only 7 percent of the flight actually was; that is, a flight originating in California here in the United States and flying to London. Very simply, the unilateral imposition of such a scheme on the United States and other countries is arbitrary, unfair, and a violation of international law. Plus, it is being done without any guarantees for environmental improvements and at a huge cost to the aviation industry and constituents we serve here in this country. According to the International Air Transport Association, the economic cost of this program for airlines is expected to be $1.3 billion in 2012. Let me repeat that: $1.3 billion in 2012. It is expected to reach as high as $3.5 billion by the year 2020. Those are revenues coming out of the airlines in this country that would be used to pay for this fee--this tax, if you will--imposed by the EU on U.S. airspace. By requiring commercial aviation to comply, the EU ETS also limits airline capital that could be available for other meaningful purposes, including their ability to invest in more fuel-efficient engines, alternative sources of fuel, and research and development. No one in Congress is against the EU implementing ETS within their boundaries. However, I believe that any system that includes international and other non-EU airspace must be addressed through the International Civil Aviation Organization, the ICAO policies, of which the United States and 190 countries are members. In fact, under current ICAO standards, the aviation industry is targeted to achieve a 1.5- percent average annual improvement in carbon and fuel efficiency through 2020 and carbon-neutral growth from 2020 forward. That is why the U.S. airline industry and those advocates in the industry also agree that a single global approach to greenhouse gas emissions set at the ICAO is preferred to the unilateral EU ETS system. Even the Obama administration testified before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in July of 2011 that an EU ETS is inconsistent with international aviation law. The State Department and the U.S. Department of Transportation are also pressing this issue with their counterparts in Europe and are considering all legal and policy options to prevent further application of EU ETS to U.S. air carriers. In addition, other nations have voiced opposition. Those nations include Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, the Russian Federation, and South Africa. In fact, China's Ambassador to the EU recently suggested that they will begin canceling Airbus orders if the EU ETS remains in place. Also, countries such as Italy, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, and Spain--all EU member states--are calling for the postponement of EU ETS out of concerns raised by the international community. Even European manufacturers and airlines such as Airbus, Air France, and British Airways have urged their respective governments to stop the escalating trade conflict between the EU and the rest of the world. The EU has no right to play policeman and undermine the ongoing work at the ICAO. As a result of this action by the EU, on December 7, 2011, I introduced the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act, S. 1956, which now has seven cosponsors, both Democrats and Republicans. The bill gives the Secretary of Transportation the authority to take the necessary steps to ensure that America's aviation operators are not penalized by any system unilaterally imposed by the EU. The bill also requires the Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator of the FAA, and other senior U.S. officials to use their authority to conduct international negotiations and take other actions necessary to ensure that U.S. operators are held harmless from the action of the European Union. The House of Representatives passed a similar bill by a voice vote on October 24, 2011. The U.S. commercial aviation community, including airlines and manufacturers, are all supportive of my bipartisan bill. Next month, I am looking forward to the Commerce Committee hearing that is scheduled to take a closer look at this important issue and at my legislation. Doing nothing is not an option. The unilateral imposition of the EU emissions trading scheme is a violation of international law and is hurting U.S. airlines, manufacturers, and consumers. Keep in mind that with near record oil prices, the EU ETS will add to the already high amount airlines and passengers pay for fuel. We need to act now. We need to send a clear and unequivocal message and pass my bipartisan bill that addresses this scheme and protects the U.S. aviation industry and American sovereignty. I hope we will act on this legislation and make sure that this issue, once and for all, is put to rest and that the European Union is not able to assess a tax or a fee on American airlines operating in American airspace. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to commend the Senator from Wyoming for his great work on the subject. As Americans know firsthand, we continue to struggle with an economy that is not performing well or meeting the needs of workers. The unemployment rate remains at about 8 percent, as has been the case for the last 28 months. Much of this can be attributed to a lack of certainty on the part of employers. One need look no further than the regulatory policies being pushed by this administration to understand why job creators are not creating jobs. Back on December 22 of 2011, the technically independent National Labor Relations Board published the final rule on representation-case procedures, better known as the ``ambush elections'' rule. This new rule could allow a union to organize an election in as little as 10 days. This new rule is the most drastic and sweeping modification to the union election process in more than 60 years. According to the National Labor Relations Board, the median time in which an election is held is 38 days, and 92 percent of all elections occur within 56 days. In fiscal year 2011 the NLRB reports that 71.4 percent of unions won their elections, which is up 3\1/2\ percent from fiscal year 2010. It is hard for one to claim that union elections are being held up unnecessarily with these sorts of track records. The changes put forth by the NLRB will radically change the process of union organizations and will limit an employer's ability to respond to union claims before an election, thereby stifling debate and ambushing an employer and employees. Employers use the time after an election petition has been received to ensure compliance with the National Labor Relations Act, to consult with human resource professionals, and to inform--to inform--their employees about the benefits and shortcomings of unionizing. It is nearly impossible for a small business owner to navigate the regulations of the National Labor Relations Act without the assistance of outside counsel, which will be hard to find in 10 days or less. On April 21, 1959, then-Senator John F. Kennedy stated, and I quote: The 30-day waiting period is an additional safeguard against rushing employees into an election where they are unfamiliar with the issues. It appears that rushing elections is exactly what the NLRB and big labor are hoping for. After all, unions win 87 percent of elections held 11 to 15 days after an election request is made. The rate falls to 58 percent when the vote take place after 36 to 40 days. On a decision as important as whether to form a union, workers should have the opportunity to hear from both sides, free from any pressure one way or the other, an opportunity that the NLRB's recent decision would take away. In addition to ambushing employers with union elections, the NLRB has now decided to recognize micro-unions. The NLRB ruled that so long as a union's petitioned-for unit consists of an identifiable group of employees, the NLRB will presume it is appropriate. What does this mean for America's small businesses? This means that at your local grocery store there could be a cashiers union, a produce union, a bakers union, the list goes on and on. Micro-unions, coupled with ambush elections, can cause one small business to deal with several bargaining units in the workplace and little time to no time to raise concerns against such actions. The Supreme Court has expressly stated: An employer's free speech rights to communicate his views to his employees is firmly established and cannot be infringed by a union or the NLRB. The recent actions of the NLRB have all but silenced any freedom of speech once enjoyed by employers. For the State of South Dakota, increased unionization will mean higher costs for the health care industry, driving up health costs for hospitals and consumers. It will also mean higher costs for hotels, tourism, small businesses, and other service industries. The Federal Government should not be acting to slow or hinder job growth in our current economy but should instead be looking for ways to foster job growth. In addition to radically changing the way in which union elections are organized, the NLRB promulgated a rule requiring most private sector employers to post a notice informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. I believe this is yet another example of Federal overreach by this administration that benefits their special interest allies at the expense of American businesses that are currently struggling to create jobs, which is why I introduced the Employer Free Speech Act last year. If enacted, this legislation would prohibit the NLRB from requiring employers to post a notice about how to establish a union. I am happy to report that on April 17, 2012, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with me and has stopped the NLRB from enforcing this unnecessary and burdensome rule. This administration is making a habit of using regulatory policies to strengthen unions and harm the economy. In these difficult times, the last thing government should be doing is putting roadblocks in front of American businesses as they attempt to do their part to turn our economy around and to create jobs. In the 74 years of the NLRB's existence prior to 2009, the Board had promulgated just one substantive rule. It is time that the NLRB return to its main function, which is to act as a quasi-judicial agency. These actions by the NLRB further push our government down a dangerous path, one in which decisions no longer lie in the hands of those elected by the people but by unaccountable bureaucrats sitting in Washington disconnected from people. For these reasons and many others, I am supporting S.J. Res. 36, and I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with American employees and employers and to vote to stop the NLRB from moving forward with what is a misguided and deeply flawed ambush election rule. I congratulate the Senator from Wyoming for getting this matter on the Senate floor and giving us an opportunity to debate it. This is yet another example of an administration that seems to be bent upon creating more excessive overreaching regulations, making it more difficult and more expensive for American small businesses to create jobs and to get the economy growing again. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting to stop this from happening.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, very soon the Senate is going to be voting on whether to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012, to enact the so-called Buffett rule. It is ironic that we would be debating that subject right now because there is so much work we ought to be doing that would actually address the fundamental problems our economy is facing right now. If you look at the President's focus on this particular issue and you look at what his economic record consists of since he became President, here is what we are looking at. Gas prices are up 111 percent since President Obama took office. There are now 38 months in a row where we have had unemployment that exceeded 8 percent. We have seen college tuition go up by 25 percent. We have seen health care costs go up by 23 percent. The number of people on food stamps in this country is up by 45 percent. The Federal debt we are handing off to our children and grandchildren is up by 47 percent. That is this President's economic record. It is ironic that we are here today talking about something even the White House admits is a gimmick that would do nothing to reduce the Federal debt, strengthen the economy, or move us toward the fundamental tax reform that is sorely needed for this country. On April 1, just over 2 weeks ago, America claimed the dubious distinction of having the highest combined corporate tax rates among advanced economies when Japan implemented its corporate rate tax reduction. Yet, rather than debate how best to reform our Tax Code to help American companies compete in a global economy, we are instead spending our time on a politically motivated measure that everybody knows is not going to become law. Before we consider why the Buffett rule is bad tax policy, let me start by acknowledging just how inconsequential this change in law would be. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the bill offered by Senator Whitehouse would raise tax revenue by $47 billion over the next 10 years. This means the legislation, if enacted, would raise each year about half of what the Federal Government spends every single day. Think about that for just a moment. President Obama has been flying around the country touting the importance of a proposal that, if enacted, would raise about half of 1 day's worth of Federal spending. So between now and this time tomorrow we will actually spend more Federal tax dollars than what this would bring in in an entire year. Put another way, the revenue this legislation would raise each year amounts to .03 of 1 percent of the $15.6 trillion national debt--.03 of 1 percent of the Federal debt. This bill would raise less than 1 percent of the $6.4 trillion in deficits projected over the next decade under the Obama administration's budget. This bill is clearly not about deficit reduction or taking any meaningful action to get our fiscal house in order. What then is this legislation about? The President and many Democratic Members of Congress stated they believe the Buffett rule is about ``tax fairness.'' Their view is that wealthy Americans are not paying their ``fair share.'' Unfortunately for supporters of this legislation, the facts simply don't support that view. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States already has the most progressive income tax system among its 34 member nations. In fact, in 2009 the top 1 percent of taxpayers by adjusted gross income paid 37 percent of all Federal income taxes even though they only accounted for 17 percent of all income. Let's take the top 5 percent of taxpayers. They paid 60 percent of all income taxes even though they only accounted for 32 percent of all income. In 2009, taxpayers with over $1 million in adjusted gross income accounted for 10 percent of income reported but paid 20 percent of income taxes. In terms of effective income tax rates, the Congressional Research Service recently reported that the average effective tax rate among millionaires is already 30 percent. It is true that some millionaires such as Warren Buffett pay a lower effective tax rate because they get a large percentage of their income from capital gains and dividends. The lower tax rate on investment income is not a tax loophole; it is the result of a deliberate policy by Congress and past Presidents to encourage new investments in our economy. In fact, in 1997, Democratic President Bill Clinton signed into law a reduction in the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent. What was the result of that rate reduction? Taxable capital gains nearly doubled over the next 3 years. Unemployment fell below 4 percent, and the increased Federal revenue from capital gains realization held a Federal budget surplus. But rather than learning the lesson that lower taxes on investment income lead to more investment, the Buffett tax would take us in the opposite direction. The Buffett tax is nothing more than a backdoor tax on the nearly 60 percent of all capital gains and dividend income earned by upper income taxpayers. We can debate about how best to encourage new investments in clean energy and high technology or in other important sectors of our economy, but I hope we can all agree that raising taxes on these investments is not the best way to encourage them. We should bear in mind that the current U.S. integrated tax rate is 50.8 percent, the fourth highest among OECD nations. It is bad enough that America has the highest combined corporate tax rate. Perhaps some supporters of the Buffett tax would also wish us to have the highest tax on investment income as well. Simply put, the Buffett tax is a solution in search of a problem. Wealthy Americans are already paying a huge share of income taxes. And for that small minority of wealthier Americans such as Warren Buffett who feel compelled to pay higher taxes to the Federal Government, I propose that we make it easier for them to do so. Last October I introduced the Buffett Rule Act of 2011, which currently has 40 cosponsors here in the Senate. My legislation would create a box on the Federal tax forms that individuals or businesses could check if they wish to donate additional dollars to the Federal Government for debt reduction. We should make it as easy as possible for those who want to pay higher taxes to voluntarily make those payments, but let's not impose a new tax on entrepreneurs and small business owners who believe they can spend their own dollars better than Washington can. Some have attempted to characterize this bill as a step toward comprehensive tax reform. When I say this bill, I am talking about the bill we are going to be voting on later. Unfortunately, it is exactly the opposite. Comprehensive tax reform is needed for many reasons, but one major reason is because we desperately need to simplify our convoluted tax system. How is a bill that adds a new layer of complexity to the Tax Code a step toward comprehensive tax reform? It is bad enough that we already have an alternative minimum tax that snares millions of American families. The Buffett tax, if it is enacted, would become an alternative alternative minimum tax. It would be a new layer of unnecessary complexity on top of an already existing layer of unnecessary complexity. We should not forget that the alternative minimum tax was originally put in place back in 1970 to ensure that 155 wealthy Americans paid a higher rate of tax. Yet this year over 4 million Americans are going to be hit by the alternative minimum tax. In fact, if Congress does not act to enact the AMT patch for tax year 2012, the Congressional Budget Office projects that more than 30 million Americans will be subject to higher taxes due to the alternative minimum tax. Clearly Congress's record of targeting tax increases at only the very wealthy is not very good. The Obama administration has stated that its intent is for the Buffett rule to replace the existing alternative minimum tax. Yet according to an analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation, replacing the existing AMT with the Buffett tax would add nearly $800 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. It is time for the gimmicks to stop and the Senate to get serious about the real tax issues that are facing us. The reality is we have a $5 trillion tax increase over the next 10 years--the largest tax increase in our Nation's history--staring us in the face come next year. If we don't act to extend the lower individual tax rates, the lower estate tax rates, the lower rates on capital gains and dividend and other expiring provisions, our economy will face a tax increase of over $400 billion in 2013. Allowing 2001 and 2003 tax rates to expire would be an enormous tax increase on our economy equal roughly to 2.5 percent of the GDP. According to the Congressional Budget Office, allowing the new tax increase to go into effect would slow GDP from 0.3 percent to 2.9 percent. That would mean a loss of at least 300,000 jobs and could mean the loss of as many as 2.9 million jobs. This massive tax increase could mean the difference between a sustained economic recovery and falling back into recession. Yet here we are today discussing a bill that would not extend tax relief for hard-working Americans. It would not forestall a massive tax increase on our economy. The bill before us would do one thing and one thing only, and that is target higher taxes on a smaller subset of our population in order to serve a political purpose. It is time to end the class warfare of pitting one group of Americans against another and instead move forward with ensuring that tax relief is there for all Americans. I hope that once the cloture motion fails later today, we can pivot to what most American people want us to do and that is to enact measures that grow the pie, to expand our shared prosperity rather than the politics of envy and wealth redistribution. The opportunity cost of all of these tax-the-rich proposals offered by our Democratic colleagues--whether the millionaire surtax or Buffett tax--is that they distract us from what should be our focus, and that is fundamental tax reform. The former Director of the CBO, Doug Holtz-Eakin, recently released a study where he estimated that comprehensive tax reform could raise the rate of GDP growth by at least 0.3 percentage points annually. This faster rate of GDP growth would result in increased Federal revenues in the range of $80 billion to $100 billion each year, much more than the Buffett tax is projected to raise. So I will say to my Democratic colleagues, if you want tax policies that raise more Federal government revenue, broad-based, comprehensive tax reform is the way to get there. But, of course, tax reform is going to be difficult and it will require Presidential leadership as much as it required Presidential leadership back in 1986. It is easier to promote measures such as the Buffett tax that do nothing to improve our tax or our economy but that make for a good 30-second political ad. I understand why some of my colleagues want us to have this political debate today, but I hope we can move quickly to real progrowth tax reforms. That would be the best means by which to promote real tax fairness for all Americans. I believe all Americans want to see this Congress working in a way that expands the pie, not redistributes it. We should be looking at ways we can grow the economy and make and create more jobs for more Americans, raise the standard of living, quality of life Americans enjoy in this country. It is clear the one way not to do that is to raise taxes on the people who invest and create jobs in this country, and that is precisely what this particular tax would do. It is the wrong approach. It is clearly motivated by political purposes, nothing more than to create a good 30-second political ad in an election year. If the American people see through this, they understand what plagues Washington, DC, is not a revenue problem, it is a spending problem. For those who want to pay more, we have a way of doing that. Let's enact legislation that allows people in this country who have that kind of income to be able to check a box to contribute more in tax revenue toward tax reduction, but let's not impose and require and mandate these types of taxes on the people in this country who are creating the jobs and have an opportunity to help us grow this economy and put more people back to work. After all, that is what the American people want us to be focused on. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Then, of course, there is even the Governor of a State such as California, which I will submit for the Record. But the point is, there are lots of promises made that haven't been kept with this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Well, I would say to my colleague from Arizona, he always has a way with words when it comes to describing the strange meanderings of the process here in Washington, but it is. Unfortunately, all those groups that had access to the process in the end all got sort of kowtowed into going along with it and now they are all being hit with this huge tax bill, because everybody is getting taxed to pay for this. All of it is being passed on, I might add, to businesses in this country, driving up their costs. But the one thing everyone here this morning has mentioned is who didn't have a seat at the table, and that is the States. Think about the States and what this means for them. Of course, in the first 3 years, the Federal Government said it was going to pay 100 percent of the new population to be covered under Medicaid. But if you look at what happens after that, the States then are starting to have to share or bear more of the burden and be forced to pay at least another $118 billion, according to one congressional report, through the year 2023, which crowds out priorities such as education, law enforcement, and all the things we expect our States to do. So the States get all these mandates shoved down their throats, making it more difficult for them to bear the responsibilities they have to the people in their individual States because the Federal Government has not only said they are going to have to pay for this, but they have also become very prescriptive about what they can and cannot do. So States are no longer going to have--and frankly, even in the past, haven't had--a lot of flexibility when it comes to setting eligibility standards and determining who can and cannot be covered by Medicaid in their individual States. They just get the costs shoved down their throats, with very little input into how to implement this program, so much so that Governors all over the country are reacting to this, and that is why we have 26 Governors who are part of the litigation that is going on right now at the Supreme Court to challenge the mandate on Medicaid, which will be heard today by the Court. But listen to what some of the Governors around the country have said--and these are Democratic Governors. This is the Democratic Governor of Kentucky: I have no idea how we're going to pay for it. And, of course, he is referring to these new mandates, regulations. The former Governor of Tennessee said: I can't think of a worse time for this bill to be coming. Nobody is going to put their State in bankruptcy or their education system in the tank for it. The Governor of Montana said: I'm going to have to double my patient load and run the risk of bankrupting Montana. Those are Democratic Governors reacting to this new mandate that is being shoved down their throat because of the changes that were made to Medicaid in the health care bill. So I think the States, unfortunately, did not have a seat at the table. If they did, they certainly didn't get their voices heard because they are going to be forced now, and people, individuals in these States, to come up with the billions and billions of additional dollars to pay to finance the new mandates in the legislation. I want to make one other point, because there has been a lot said here on the floor of the Senate, and by people in general in Congress, about the importance of focusing like a laser on jobs and the economy. Frankly, I think there are some things that actually have been done around here. Last week, we finally passed a jobs bill, a private sector jobs bill, that would create jobs, and hopefully make it easier for our small businesses to access capital to grow their businesses and create jobs. But the health care bill, clearly, is going to have the opposite effect. Interestingly enough, when it passed, there were lots of statements made at the time about how many jobs it was going to create. In fact, if you go back, the former Speaker of the House said it would create 4 million jobs--400,000 jobs almost immediately. That was former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Interestingly enough, that contradicts what the Congressional Budget Office Director said. He testified the new law would actually reduce employment over the next decade by 800,000 jobs. And analysts at UBS stated the law is ``arguably the biggest impediment to hiring, particularly hiring of less skilled workers.'' So what we are seeing again is a promise made about creating jobs and the very opposite is what we are going to see. There was a Gallup poll recently that found 48 percent of small businesses in this country are not hiring because of the potential cost of health insurance under the health care law; 46 percent are not hiring because of concerns over other government regulations. But if you look at the impact this legislation is having on hiring in America today, what we are hearing from the people who hire--the job creators out there and the small businesses--this is a huge impediment to hiring. The device manufacturer Stryker announced they are shedding 5 percent of their workforce over concerns about the impending 2.3 percent medical device tax which was included in the health care law. There is another employer here, somebody who owns a restaurant chain, who stated bluntly, ``This law will cost my company more than we make.'' Another employer in this country said this: ``The new health care law has wrecked our plans to grow our business and create jobs.'' That is exactly the thing many of us predicted would happen, notwithstanding the assertions made by the proponents of this legislation--that it was going to create jobs. We see the very opposite happening. We see our small businesses pulling back, not hiring, not growing their businesses because of the concerns about the costs and the penalties that would be imposed and the taxes that are included in the health care law. I know my colleague from Wyoming represents a lot of small businesses, as I do. South Dakota and Wyoming are similar in terms of the size of the States and the way people make their living. We have a lot of small businesses and entrepreneurs, and we look to them to grow the economy in our States. Obviously, it becomes much more difficult when you continue to drive and shove these mandates, these requirements, down the throats of our small businesses, these new taxes they are going to have to bear. And the list of new taxes that are going to imposed under this is pretty amazing. It adds up to--and this is just over the cost of the first decade--$552 billion; when it is fully implemented, $1 trillion of tax increases, all of which get passed on in the form of higher costs of health insurance and other costs around the economy. My point is simply that if we are sincere in being focused on creating jobs in this country, perhaps the biggest impediment, the biggest barrier to that now is the ObamaCare law that is currently being heard by the Supreme Court. I guess I would ask my colleague from Wyoming to comment on his view with regard to some of these promises that were made regarding this legislation and how actually the bill is now playing out, as we get to know more about it. That is what the former Speaker of the House also said: We have to get this bill passed to find out what is in it. The American people are finding out what is in it and are becoming increasingly convinced this was the wrong direction to go. I assume that is a view shared by the majority of people in Wyoming.

Mr. THUNE. It certainly is. As the Senator from Wyoming mentioned, the huge majority of businesses around this country--and especially small businesses such as those he and I represent in Wyoming and South Dakota--are enormously concerned about what this is going to do to their ability to create jobs, to maintain coverage for their employees. There are so many huge impacts from this, much of which, frankly, we predicted. But again, the idea or the notion that somehow imposing over $\1/2\ trillion in new taxes on businesses in this country, on health insurance plans, was somehow going to lead to lower costs for people to get coverage in this country is beyond me. I am at a loss to explain how anybody could make the argument this was going to create jobs. Former Speaker Pelosi predicted 4 million new jobs. The Congressional Budget Office had said it would cost us 800,000 jobs. I suspect that is a conservative estimate, based on what I hear from employers in my State and elsewhere around the country. But I do wish to point out too that in so many ways, because of the new mandates, because of the new taxes, because of the new costs, this is just going to make everybody's lives more complicated and more difficult, including our States. We represent States where our Governors, our legislators work hard to balance our budgets and to live within their means, not to spend money they don't have. Yet here they are being forced by the Federal Government to swallow these additional costs that are coming because of this new health care plan. Basically, what the Obama administration has done is put shackles on the States when it comes to making decisions about the eligibility needs in their States. They are going to have lower spending on Medicaid providers. In some cases, our States are trying innovative approaches to care and delivery. They are trying to come up with new ways of doing this and to do it more effectively. Yet the Federal Government is going to make that much more difficult. The bottom line is the combined effect of the ObamaCare's policies has taken power from the States, given more of it to Washington. It has forced unrealistic new spending mandates on the States that are going to crowd out those local priorities the Senator from Wyoming mentioned, such as education, such as law enforcement, the things I think constituents in our individual States expect their Governors and their State legislators to deal with. Again, I would come back to what these Governors have said, and I am not talking about the conservative Republican Governors in this country. Look at what the Democratic Governors have said. The Governor of Kentucky: ``I have no idea how to pay for this.'' The Governor of Montana basically saying that increasing the patient load under this bill will cause bankruptcy or force him to bankrupt his State.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Patrick Doyle, an intern in my Rapid City, SD, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past few months. Patrick is a graduate of Stevens High School in Rapid City, SD. Currently, he is attending the University of South Dakota, where he is majoring in political science and history. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Patrick for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The combination of those things is only going to cost jobs. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I echo what the Senator from Arizona said about the CLASS Act. He was here, as was I and many others, debating this bill and saying this was a program destined to be bankrupt. In fact, if we look at the independent Actuary, he was saying the CLASS Act was unworkable. They said it would collapse in short order. Within the HHS Department, there was a nonpartisan career staff that called it a ``recipe for disaster.'' There was plenty of advance warning this wasn't going to work. The Senator from Arizona correctly pointed out it was used as a gimmick to make the overall cost look less and, therefore, bring it into balance. As we know now, the CLASS Act could not work. They have had to acknowledge that, and the amendment put on by Senator Gregg, which would have forced them to certify, made that abundantly clear. To the point of the Senator from Mississippi, the purpose of the exercise was that we have to do something about the cost of health care. In fact, the President of the United States, when he was running, said this: If you've got health insurance, we are going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2,500 per family per year. We will not wait 20 years from now to do it, or 10 years from now to do it; we will do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States. I am sure the Senator from Arizona probably remembers very well many of these statements. But the facts tell a different story. If we look at what health care costs are doing, and even what was predicted by the Congressional Budget Office, they said the law was going to increase health insurance premiums by 10 to 13 percent, which means families purchasing coverage were going to pay an additional $2,100 because of the new law. That has actually been borne out. If we look at the cost of health insurance for people in this country today, it has gone up, not down; it has gone up dramatically--since the President took office, about 25 percent for most Americans. All these promises about getting costs under control, the promises about keeping what people have, the promises about this being done in a way that would protect Medicare--we all know Medicare was going to be slashed when this was fully implemented, to the tune of $1 trillion, and there would be $1 trillion in new taxes also. The American people got a bad deal, and they know it. That is what the public opinion polls show.