John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. It would be, and, by the way, we have that amendment and would be happy to offer it. We tried to call up the bill, but it was objected to by the Democrats. The thing about bad ideas around here is that they tend to come back. This idea ought to be put away once and for all. Yet it is on the books, as the Senator pointed out. I don't know why, after all the evidence out there now that has been put forward, including the Health and Human Services Secretary saying this will not work. But we continue to maintain it on the books in the hopes of some in the administration, I am sure, that it can be resurrected in the future. It was a bad idea then, and it will be in the future. It just doesn't pencil out. We cannot make it work. It saddles future generations of Americans with massive amounts of debt.

Mr. THUNE. I would say to my colleague from Mississippi that one of the areas where jobs may be created is in the Federal Government because it is going to take an awful lot of Federal bureaucrats to oversee and lots of new IRS agents to implement this legislation. That would be the only place we will see job creation. But when it comes to private sector job creation, the thing about this is, it raises the cost for health insurance coverage for employers, and it raises taxes on a lot of people who are involved in health care.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Will the Senator yield for a question on jobs and the economy?

Mr. THUNE. I appreciate the Senator's legislation. I hope it is acted on. It is a rare day indeed when you have legislation that has bipartisan support, and in the case of the JOBS bills, also supported by the White House. That is a tremendous rarity here and one we ought to take advantage of. We should move the JOBS package quickly. I hope the Senator's bill will enjoy similar bipartisan support and will be something we can act on as well. These are the types of things that right now I think the American people--certainly the people of South Dakota and the people of Kansas-- want to see us focus on. They want us to do things that will make it easier, less expensive, and less difficult to create jobs in the country and put people back to work and grow this economy and provide more opportunities for Americans. The question I have for the Senator from Kansas, because it bears directly on the issue of the economy and has to do with regulations and policies coming out of Washington, is this: We are talking about a package of legislation that would enable access for job creators and small businesses to the capital they need to invest and grow their business and create jobs. It is enabling, in a sense, allowing better conditions for capital formation, especially for small businesses, which is where most of the jobs are created. There are other things the Federal Government is not doing that it should be doing to help the economy grow and drive down input costs for people in the country. I want to refer to the issue of fuel prices. In a State such as mine, where you have an agricultural economy, it is very dependent upon energy, in terms of diesel fuel, fertilizer, and all those things that are incredibly dependent upon energy. It is also a rural State with a pretty big geography, where people have to drive long distances. When you see gas approach the $4 range--and in my State, it is not there yet, but in other States it is--that is a very serious impediment. There are things we ought to be doing to open more domestic production, to allow people who want to invest in energy to do so. We have lots of laws and regulations that make it more difficult, that prohibit it. We have what I would call some low-hanging fruit or easy opportunities to do that. The Keystone Pipeline is one that would bring about 800,000 barrels a day into this country, where it would be processed and refined and put Americans to work and lessen the dependence we have on foreign oil. I am curious how that impacts a State such as Kansas and how it impacts job creation and small businesses, when we talk about Federal policies that have a direct bearing on our economy and people's everyday lives, and particularly with regard to small businesses, which we are talking about today.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I do appreciate the opportunity to join with my colleague, Senator Moran from Kansas, to speak in support of the bill that is before us, H.R. 3606, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups, or JOBS Act. The JOBS Act is a bipartisan bill that passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 390 to 23. It has also been endorsed by the White House. Small businesses are the engines of our economy, but government redtape is currently preventing these businesses from creating even more jobs. This commonsense bill would enable small businesses in South Dakota and across the country to better access much needed capital so they can make investments and add employees. There is no reason it should not receive similar support in the Senate. Creating jobs should be one of our top priorities in the Senate. We owe it to the American people and to small businesses across this country that are counting on us to do something that will make it easier, less expensive, and less difficult to create jobs. Too often what we see coming out of Washington, DC, are policies that put up obstacles and barriers and impediments to our small businesses, making it more difficult and more costly to create jobs. We see that daily with regulations coming out of many of the agencies in Washington, DC. The Senator from Kansas and I have been on the floor previously talking about regulations proposed by the Department of Labor--85 pages worth of regulations--that would, in a very prescriptive way, tell farmers and ranchers how young people can work in their farming and ranching operations. It is amazing to me the level of detail to which those regulations go and how prescriptive they are with regard to something that has historically in this country and traditionally been very much a part of our heritage; that is, the young people growing up on farms, being involved in those farming and ranching operations, making them profitable. We have a Federal agency now that thinks it knows better. So these 85 pages of regulations came out and suggested that there are certain things young people on farms and ranches should not do--not only suggested them, it says they cannot do. They cannot herd cattle from the back of a horse, cannot work around grain bins and stockyards, cannot work with animals that are more than 6 months old, cannot work at elevations or heights more than 6 feet. These are all things the Department of Labor, in its infinite wisdom, has determined they know better about farming and ranching operations in this country than do the people who work there. It would transform the way in which family farm and ranch operations are conducted. It adds additional cost and barriers to these farmers and ranchers who work so hard to make a living. They are the quintessential small businesses in our country. They work hard. They have a tremendous work ethic. They are people who make their living on the land, and all they simply ask from their government is that they not impose these types of barriers and regulations and impediments to them doing what they do best; that is, to feed the world and to create a strong and vibrant farm economy. So the JOBS bill that is before us takes us in a different direction than all of the regulations I just referred to, which makes it more difficult and more expensive for people in this country to create jobs and to grow their businesses. This package of bills that came over from the House of Representative, which, as I mentioned, passed by a vote of 390 to 23--there were only 23 dissenting votes in the House, an overwhelming bipartisan majority in support of this legislation. And it is because these are such commonsensical things--so commonsensical that the White House has endorsed most of these bills, if not all of these bills. They passed in the House of Representatives individually before they were packaged into this particular piece of legislation that was sent to us by that 390-to-23 vote. They were passed individually by huge votes. There is a piece of legislation, a bill that was passed in the House of Representatives, that Senator Toomey has the companion bill in the Senate that passed 421 to 1. We had one of those bills that passed in the House of Representatives by a voice vote and the legislation--the bill I have as a part of this package passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 413 to 11 last November. That was also included in this JOBS bill that has come over to us now from the House. So what we want to do is make it easier for small businesses, which literally are the engine and the backbone of our economy, to create most of the new jobs in our economy; to do that, to create jobs, to invest capital, to put their capital to work, and to make our economy grow. So I would just say, by way of introduction, that I hope we cannot only get to this bill, get on this bill, but move quickly to pass it through the Senate, and get it on the President's desk because we do not have a lot of time to waste. We all know what the statistics are. We know the high unemployment rate we have seen, the sluggish economic growth. We need to get this economy growing again. We need to make it easier, not harder, for small businesses to create jobs and to get access to capital. Many of these bills in this package--this small business jobs package--really do focus on the issue of capital formation and allowing small businesses to have easier access to the capital that will allow them to grow their companies and to grow jobs. So what I would like to do--my colleague from Kansas is here. As I said, he is someone who, as a member of the Senate Banking Committee, has been a leader on this legislation and on many of these issues, and a leader, as I mentioned earlier, in fighting regulations coming out of Washington, DC, that make it harder and more difficult and more expensive to create jobs, in particular, as I mentioned earlier--we had this discussion a couple of weeks ago with regard to these Department of Labor regulations impacting family farms and ranchers--just one of many regulations, the proliferation of regulations coming out of Washington, DC, that consistently are overreaching in terms of their impact and what they do to create additional burdens for our small businesses. So I would like to yield to my colleague from Kansas for his observations and thoughts with regard to the JOBS bill that is before us, and what we as a Senate ought to be doing to try to create better conditions and a more favorable environment for our small businesses to create jobs.

Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleague from Kansas, Senator Moran.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I say to my friend, I believe sincerely-- and I think he does--that we need a real all-of-the-above strategy. We ought to be developing all forms of American energy, homegrown energy, domestic energy. I appreciate it when the President of the United States seizes upon that slogan and talks about supporting an all-of- the-above strategy, but his policies tell another story. If you look at things the Senator raised, such as increasing our domestic supply, homegrown production, there are a series of things that would do that. Approving the Keystone Pipeline would be the first one. It is right there--20,000 shovel-ready jobs. It is a $7 billion initial investment, with 800,000 barrels of oil coming to us from Canada, as opposed to coming from Venezuela and Hugo Chavez and the Middle East. It is such a no-brainer hanging out there for us to immediately act on. Unfortunately, the administration said no to that. They also said no to development in Alaska, no to offshore development, no to oil shale development, no to streamlining permits, and no to new leases. All have been put off limits, which are the very things that would increase the supply and thereby address the issue the Senator mentioned, which is that we have too much demand chasing too little supply and, therefore, too high of a price, which bears on the pocketbooks of every single American, every small business, every family. We need a real all-of-the-above strategy, not just lipservice to it, which is what we get out of this administration. It is an example---- [Disturbance in the Gallery.]

Mr. THUNE. This is an example of where public policy directly influences economic outcome. There is no way you cannot argue that more supply would lead to lower prices at the pump. For sure, more domestic supply would lead to more American jobs. That is what we are talking about today with jobs in the economy. That is why this issue bears directly on it. I appreciate my colleague from Kansas pointing out the impact it has in his State on small businesses, farmers, and ranchers, who generally have to drive long distances. I will wrap up by simply saying again that we need to focus like a laser on jobs. That is why I was pleased we were able to get the majority leader and, after some time our leader to move to jobs. We have lots of strategies mentioned that were going to be considered on the Senate floor. The real issue in the minds of the American people, in terms of getting people back to work, is putting policies in place that will enable and make it easier and less difficult and less costly to create jobs. Briefly, in addition to the bill the Senator from Kansas talked about--his bill--my legislation, which is included in the JOBS package, passed by 413 to 11. What it does is makes it easier for small and growing businesses to solicit investors to help them raise the capital they need to create jobs and, in the process, help our economy grow. Specifically, it would remove a regulatory roadblock that is currently preventing small businesses from reaching out to potential accredited investors and thereby allowing these job creators to more easily raise capital from accredited investors nationwide. This is commonsense legislation that will enable small businesses and startup companies to better access the capital they need to expand and create jobs. My provision has a lot of support from American job creators around the country. The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council called it ``a long overdue solution that will widen the pool of potential funders for entrepreneurs . . . to seek and secure the capital they need to compete and grow. . . . Our economy will improve once entrepreneurs are provided the tools, opportunities and incentives they need to hire and invest.'' There are 175 Democrats in the House of Representatives who have supported this bill as a stand-alone bill. It has been endorsed by the SEC's Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies. When it was included in the broader JOBS bill in the House, it passed, as I said, by a vote of 390 to 23. If job growth is our priority here in the Senate, we should not delay on moving forward with this important job- creating legislation. I thank my colleague from Kansas for joining me on the floor today to talk about the need to pass this JOBS Act and get it on the President's desk, as he said he wanted in his State of the Union Address back in January. It represents exactly what we should be doing here in Washington; that is, creating a stable and productive economic environment by easing regulatory burdens and unleashing economic potential without adding to the national debt. The Senator from Kansas very ably addressed in his remarks earlier the importance of getting spending and debt under control, because that does also create conditions that are favorable to small businesses to invest. If there is uncertainty out there about what the Federal Government is going to be doing in terms of borrowing and spending, it creates a cloud under which it is very difficult for job creators to create jobs. I hope that my colleagues here in the Senate will support this important piece of legislation and ensure job creators across the country have access to the capital they need to hire and invest and that we will start taking steps to address the impediments, the barriers, the obstacles that are in place right now to the development of domestic energy production that will ease the price at the pump and make it more affordable for small businesses to invest in this country.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I would like to take this opportunity to honor Nora Walsh Hussey of Sturgis, SD. Nora has spent countless hours serving her community through a variety of organizations and activities. Nora has been an active participant in Promoting Educational Opportunities, PEO, an organization where women celebrate advancement through achievements in educational opportunities. She has also spent a significant amount of time volunteering as a Court Appointed Special Advocate, CASA, which supports abused and neglected children. While Nora spends the majority of her time volunteering for various organizations in the community, she also enjoys participating in bridge clubs, golfing, and cruising. Nora's achievements are not limited to her work on behalf of South Dakotans. In 1981, Nora was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to become the first non-Coloradan to supervise the Denver Mint. While supervising the mint, Nora was acknowledged by many employees for her exemplary service. I want to join Nora's family and friends in recognizing her more than 50 years of community service and celebrating her 97th birthday on March 26, 2012. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Nora for all she has done for her fellow South Dakotans and wish her continued success in years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Hosmer, SD. The town of Hosmer will commemorate the 125th anniversary of its founding this year. Hosmer was platted on May 9, 1887. The name Hosmer comes from Stella A. Hosmer, who was the wife of a railroad agent from Illinois. A great majority of Hosmer's residents claim German-Russian as their ancestry. Because of this heritage, the early settlers were able to thrive in the harsh South Dakota conditions which proved to be similar to those of their home countries. From the beginning, Hosmer has been known to provide excellent services to its citizens. In the 1920s, the town prided itself on its fine educational system, as well as a road system that was well ahead of its time. Hosmer maintained a strong business reputation in the mid- 1900s, when Dun and Bradstreet gave its businesses some of the best credit ratings of any Midwestern city. Hosmer's citizens are strong and determined like their ancestors. They have endured the hardships that are common in rural communities and have not only survived but have excelled. Hosmer has been a successful community for the past 125 years, and I am confident that it will continue to serve as an example of South Dakota values and traditions. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Hosmer on this landmark occasion and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, back in 2008 then-Senator Obama said that under his policies energy costs would necessarily ``skyrocket'' and that he would ``have preferred a gradual adjustment to higher gasoline prices.'' He indicated at the time that under his policies energy prices were going to go up. He mentioned that he would like a more gradual adjustment, but when he talked about those policies, he said energy costs would necessarily ``skyrocket.'' I think we now know which of the campaign promises the President has kept because we have seen energy prices skyrocket for most Americans. In fact, gasoline prices have doubled under President Obama's watch. If you look at January 2009, the price per gallon of gasoline was $1.85. Today it is $3.73, and some analysts are predicting $5-a-gallon gasoline by May of this year. Today marks the 24th straight day of gasoline price increases. The problem with all this is that the President rhetorically, when he goes out and talks about energy, says that he wants an all-of-the-above strategy. We always say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and obviously that is a phrase many of us as Republicans have been using for some time. We talk about an all-of-the-above strategy that includes oil and gas and clean coal and nuclear and biofuels and solar and wind--all of those. The problem with what the President says is that his actions say he really means ``none of the above.'' He says ``all of the above,'' but he means ``none of the above'' because the President has taken unprecedented steps to restrict access to America's affordable and reliable sources of oil and natural gas. President Obama's energy policies are increasing the cost of gasoline in this country. His administration is pursuing new regulations that will increase the cost of domestic energy production and destroy jobs. More domestic production of energy in this country equals lower prices at the pump and more American jobs. The President's statements have been punctuated or reinforced by members of his administration. I go back to 2008, Dr. Steven Chu, who is now President Obama's Energy Secretary, who said at the time: Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe. Think about that: that somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe. If we look at the levels in Europe, I think even at that time we are talking about $9 to $10-per- gallon gasoline. So we have members of this very administration suggesting, even back then, that part of the strategy, the energy strategy, was to increase prices. Think about that, having an energy strategy that is actually going to drive up the cost of energy to people in this country. Yesterday, in testimony before the House Appropriations Committee, now-Secretary Chu, who said back in 2008, ``Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,'' was asked: But is the overall goal to get our price of gasoline down? That was asked by a Member of the House of Representatives, again, as Secretary Chu was testifying in front of the House Appropriations Committee. Is the overall goal to get our price of gasoline down? This is what the Secretary said: No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy. When we are literally doubling the price per gallon of gasoline, how does that strengthen your economy? Small businesses are faced every single day with the high costs of energy. It is an important component of running a business in this country. Energy is probably one of the most important costs people are going to deal with. It certainly is in my part of the country, where I represent an agricultural economy. American families are looking at gasoline prices that literally have doubled since this President took office. Yet here is the Secretary of Energy, the very guy who was to guide energy policy in this country, in front of a House committee as recently as yesterday, when asked about the overall goal, whether the overall goal is to get the price of gasoline down, he said no. It squares perfectly with what he said 4 years ago when he indicated that we need to figure out how to somehow boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe. That is an amazing statement. I think it is almost incomprehensible to the American people in terms of what it means to their daily lives because they are the people who ultimately, in their pocketbooks, have to deal with the consequences of bad policies--bad policies that raise the price of energy and make it more difficult for them to balance their budgets and to be able to continue to enjoy the standard of living and quality of life in this country. Yesterday Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar defended the Obama administration's failure of an energy policy when testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He said: We have an energy strategy and a policy that we have been working on from day one, and we believe it continues to show good results. Think about that. We have an energy strategy and a policy that we have been working on from day one, and we believe it continues to show good results. I don't know how you can argue that doubling the price for a gallon of gasoline is a good result. And literally taking areas out of production in this country that could be yielding energy, that would help reduce the dependence we have on foreign sources of energy, drive down the price at the pump and create American jobs is a good result? I don't know how you can argue that what has happened during this administration's time in office has been anything but disastrous for the American people, for American business, and for the continued dependency we have on foreign sources of energy. President Obama rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline which would have created 20,000 shovel-ready jobs and delivered up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada, America's largest trading partner. President Obama has reduced the number of offshore leases by half. President Obama has blocked exploration and production on 97 percent of offshore areas; 97 percent of those areas that could be useful in helping meet America's energy needs have been put off limits by this President, by his policies that blocked exploration and production in those very areas. Under the Obama administration, new permits to drill in Federal onshore and offshore areas have declined by 40 to 50 percent. That is the President's record on energy. How his Secretary of the Interior can say their energy strategy shows good results is beyond me. It is completely at odds with the reality and with the facts. The Obama administration is implementing a national backdoor energy tax through unprecedented regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, specifically targeting the oil and gas industry with new regulations, such as new source performance standards, Boiler MACT, and tier 3 gasoline standards that could drive up the cost of gasoline production by 25 cents, raise the refining industry's operating costs by $5 to $7 billion annually, lead to a 7- to 14-percent reduction in gasoline supplies from U.S. refiners, and force as many as seven U.S. refineries to shut down. That is the tier 3 gasoline standard the Obama administration is proposing. Time after time, opportunity after opportunity is missed. This President continues to put policies in place that make it more difficult and more expensive to create jobs and raises the cost of doing business by raising the cost of energy and raising the costs that every American consumer has to deal with in the form of higher gasoline prices. When he says he supports an ``all-of-the-above'' energy plan, his policies tell a very different story because his policies have discouraged increased production of oil, and high oil costs are indeed a key driver of gasoline costs. Republicans support a real all-of-the- above strategy, and that includes production in all sources of energy. It includes support of projects such as the Keystone XL Pipeline that will strengthen America's energy security, and we have to have a robust energy plan focused on increasing those areas of domestic production that will send a strong signal to energy markets around the world to make America less vulnerable to skyrocketing gasoline prices. It is interesting the response on Capitol Hill to this spike in gasoline prices we have seen over the past several days is along these lines. There was a letter from Senator Schumer to Secretary Clinton a couple of days ago in which he talked about the skyrocketing fuel prices and directly linked those to the global energy market but suggested that the solution should be urging the State Department to work with the Government of Saudi Arabia to increase its oil production to its actual capacity of 12.5 million barrels to help stabilize markets. Instead of developing American resources and actually doing something that would lessen the dependence we have on these foreign sources of energy, the solution proposed by some of our colleagues--at least some of our Democratic colleagues--is to have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton go to the Saudis, hat in hand, and beg them to increase daily production by 2.5 million barrels, ironically at the very time they are blocking policies that would help generate that same 2.5 million barrels a day right here in the United States and stabilize world markets. In fact, if we look at many of these areas that are off limits to production today--the North Slope of Alaska, the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf, the Keystone XL Pipeline--if we add up the amount of production that will bring to our country, it adds up to 4.5 million barrels a day, 4.5 million barrels per day of additional energy production that we could be benefiting from and enjoying at a time when we are seeing gas prices literally double. Of course, in accordance with the President's promise when he was running for office that prices were going to skyrocket, it should not come as any surprise. But these energy policies implemented by this administration have literally created a situation where we are now having to go and ask the Saudis: Please, would you please give us an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil a day instead of opening the areas that could generate up to 4.5 million barrels per day if we would simply develop the resources we have in this country and quit blocking the access to these important energy resources. This is a fairly straightforward issue for the American people, No. 1, because it hits very squarely in their daily lives. The pocketbook issues, the bread-and-butter issues, the issues people discuss around their tables every day are the issues that I think are most important to America right now, particularly with a down economy and high unemployment rates. Certainly, what we are seeing in terms of energy costs makes that situation worse for American families. In fact, the payroll tax holiday which was extended a couple of weeks ago will actually be eaten up, any savings that might be achieved to the American family's pocketbook will literally be eaten up simply by paying the higher costs of gasoline that are going to be imposed on every American family as a result of these higher prices, again, that simply are the result of us not having enough supply. This is a market situation. Gasoline is a global commodity. When we have more supply, it brings the price down. When we have more domestic production, it means two things: it means lower prices at the pump for American consumers, and it means more jobs for American workers. Blocking access to American sources of energy production means higher prices at the pump for American consumers and fewer jobs for American workers. It is that straightforward. It is that simple. The American people understand that. That is why the policies this administration is pursuing--and, clearly, from the statements that are being made by these members of the President's administration, from Secretary Chu to Secretary Salazar to the President himself--suggest, if you can believe this--unfathomable, I am sure, to many Americans-- that it is intentional to actually push those prices higher. That is what Secretary Chu said back in 2008: We need to boost our prices to the level they are seeing in places such as Europe. I think the American people believe differently about that. I believe they deserve better. They want policies that lower the cost of energy and make America less dependent upon dangerous foreign regimes. I know many of us--Republicans in the Senate--are ready to go to work putting those policies in place if the President and his allies in the Senate will give us that opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if the Senator from Kansas will yield quickly in closing on one point, is the Senator aware of any group that was consulted on this? Were there any farm organizations that were brought into this or had any input into this? As the Senator mentioned, was this solicited by anyone? Was there any rationale based upon data collected about safety or that sort of thing that necessitated that they use such a heavyhanded, big-government approach to addressing what they perceived to be a problem?

Mr. THUNE. I don't know what the Senator's average age of a farmer in Kansas is, but my understanding is, at least nationally, the average age of a farmer in this country is nearing 60 years old, which means one thing: somebody is going to have to fill those shoes. Somebody is going to have to come along and take over that farm or ranch operation. This is going to make it increasingly difficult to prepare that next generation of farmers and ranchers. Again, it occurs to me that this is just something that ought to be withdrawn. I hope the Senator in his efforts and those of us who are supporting that effort will succeed. This is a perfect example of a big-government solution to a problem that doesn't exist. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield on that point, what the Senator has touched upon I think is something that perhaps people who don't come from farm country don't appreciate as much as we do, and that is just the very nature of farming. Farming is, as we said, very much a family operation. What we are talking about right now with these regulations is, at a time when we have young people who want and need the opportunity to learn responsibility, who need to learn the value of hard work as well as, for that matter, earn a little extra spending money, this regulation would restrict their ability to do all three. It would be really bad for family farming and ranching in the State of South Dakota. I know that. It is also a regulation that I would say I don't think has gotten as much attention perhaps as some of the other ones that are out there but one that would have profound consequences on production agriculture. The Senator mentioned a couple of examples of operating farm equipment. If a person is on a tractor, that person probably, in most cases, would be higher than 6 feet, and this regulation would prevent them from doing things at elevations higher than 6 feet. We could also argue some other things that would fall into that category. How about working on a haystack? A farmer is going to be more than 6 feet above the ground. Some of the restrictions with regard to working with animals that are more than 6 months old--as the Senator mentioned, being able to herd cattle on the back of a horse--these are all things under these regulations that would be restricted or prevented for many of these young people. It seems pretty amazing that we would have a Washington bureaucracy dictating with this kind of specificity, with this kind of minutiae, how farm and ranch operations would be conducted. I would argue that the very organizations the Senator from Kansas mentioned--4 H, FFA, extension service--know full well and the families who operate farms know full well what the risks are. They understand. They want to protect their families. Instead, we have a Washington bureaucracy that thinks it knows best telling family farmers and ranchers how to go about their business in a way that will make it not only more difficult for them to make a living but also I think more difficult for young people to learn the skills and get the experience they will need when hopefully that time comes around that they can take over that operation of farming, ranching in Kansas, as it is in South Dakota. It is very much an intergenerational occupation. And it is more than just an occupation, more than just a vocation. It is a way of life. It is something where values are transmitted from one generation to another--the values of hard work, personal responsibility, integrity, honesty. There are so many character qualities that we value and that young people learn on family farms and ranches. So notwithstanding the economic impact on family farms and ranches, there is certainly a cultural and social impact on our family farms and ranches, and the middle of this country is tremendously impacted by this regulation. I hope the Senator from Kansas will continue to keep the heat on and continue to keep the pressure on in trying to get a response not only to the letter that he offered and that many of us signed but also to, if possible, get the Secretary of Labor to come to a State such as Kansas or, for that matter, South Dakota and actually see a family farm operation and how it functions because I think they are operating in a bubble, in a vacuum out here where there is very little understanding of the implications of these types of decisions. This is really an example of big government run amok. If we want an example of big government that has completely lost touch with reality, this is certainly an example of that. I encourage the Senator from Kansas, and I will support his effort 100 percent, to keep the pressure on and trying to get them to recognize the impact of what they are doing and the impact it would have on rural agriculture and all over the world.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this week the Gallup poll came out with a survey that said 85 percent of small businesses in this country are not hiring. They just are not hiring. When asked why, 50 percent of those small businesses responded that it was the health care law and complying with Federal regulations that were preventing them from hiring. Well, there probably isn't any better example of the overreach, overkill, and excess when it comes to regulations than the Department of Labor regulation on child labor in agriculture. It was put out and public comments were invited on the proposal last September. Since that time, numerous Senators and outside interest groups have requested a 60-day extension due to the timing of the harvest season, but the Department of Labor only extended that comment period for 30 days. Then 30 Senators--led by the Senator from Kansas who authored the letter--sent a letter that many of us signed onto, basically asking the Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, to withdraw those proposed regulations that limit the ability of farmers and ranchers to hire young people to work in agriculture. In February of this year, the Department of Labor announced plans to repropose a portion of the regulation on child labor in agriculture interpreting the ``parental exception.'' But what is interesting about it is there have been multiple efforts made to try to get a response to the letter, and the Department of Labor didn't respond to a letter from 30 Senators. It strikes me that with all of the issues that were raised in that letter and the impact this would have on the very heartland of our country and the ability of farmers and ranchers and their families to sustain themselves and to contribute to feeding the world, it seems they would at least have the courtesy of responding to the points that were raised in that letter. But we have not yet received a response to that letter sent by the Senator from Kansas, Senator Moran, and 29 other Senators who signed onto that requesting a response to the various issues that were raised. We will get into those in a minute. It strikes me as certainly odd, and perhaps I would have to say demonstrating an arrogance, a power to not respond to 30 Senators who, on behalf of their constituents, raised some issues that are very important to the economy of the heartland of the Midwest and the people I represent, and I know the Senator from Kansas represents. When you look at what they are proposing and the prescriptive nature of that, the detail they go into in restricting the ability of young people to work on family farm and ranch operations, you have to say: What were these people thinking and what world do they live in? Because there seems to be a parallel universe to think that all of these various regulations and restrictions they would impose on young people working in agriculture wouldn't undermine the very fabric, the very nature, the very foundation of American agriculture. Farming and ranching is inherently a family enterprise. Young people have contributed for generations in helping that family farm or ranch operation survive and prosper. They contribute. They grow up in that business, and in many cases they take it over. It is amazing to me, and incomprehensible, to think that bureaucrats in Washington, DC, could tell family farmers and ranchers how to run their operations with the kind of detail and the incredible prescription of these regulations and the very activities they would curtail for young people. I wanted to engage my colleague from Kansas on this subject. As I said, he was the author of the letter that was sent, along with many of us--30 Senators in all--asking the Department of Labor to withdraw, in raising a number of points about various aspects of these regulations. And, as I said, we will touch on those in a minute. I would ask my colleague from Kansas if he thinks that 85 pages of regulations, which is what this proposal is--do we need 85 pages of regulations that tell family farm and ranch operations and young people who work on those family farm and ranch operations how to go about their business? Is it necessary? Do we have to get this bureaucratic and impose these kinds of regulations, these kinds of costs and these kinds of burdens upon American agriculture at a time when--as I mentioned before--there are so many other costs associated with doing business in this country imposed by the government? The ObamaCare, the health care law, and as I mentioned earlier, the Gallup poll was mentioned by half of the small businesses who said it is one of the reasons why they are not hiring. All of these other regulations, many of which come from the EPA, but certainly the Department of Labor in this particular case is guilty of making it more difficult and more expensive to do business in this country and certainly inhibiting the very nature and, from an operation standpoint, the very way that a family farm or ranch operation conducts itself. I ask my colleague from Kansas his thoughts on this and whether he thinks it is necessary to have 85 pages of regulations having to regulate how family farm and ranch operations do their business.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from Kansas for as much time as we may consume.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. If the Senator would yield on that point, in closing, I do think there will be a vote probably at some point. The House is going to pass a budget. We know that. I suspect what will happen is what happened last year. If the Senate fails to produce, if the Democratic majority does not produce a budget here, we will end up voting on the House budget, perhaps on the President's budget. But the regrettable thing about all that is we are not doing our job as Senators. It has been over 1,000 days now, and this will be the fourth year in a row in which this body has not adopted a budget. What we have gotten from the President, of course, is not a serious one. All they want to do is get out and demagog and attack people who are serious about solving this problem. Last year, as was the case with the House-passed budget, when it came over here, it was routinely attacked and demagoged. But nothing was ever put forward that would represent an alternative because they do not want to deal with these issues. It is unfortunate for the American people.

Mr. THUNE. I would say to the Senator from Alabama that it was interesting to me because at the White House Fiscal Responsibility Summit in February of 2009--this is in the context of discussing our unsustainable budget deficits--President Obama said the following: Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget of the next administration or the next generation. That is exactly what he has been doing now for 4 years, literally-- every budget, every year. We think, OK, maybe this year the President is going to get serious because we have serious problems and these are serious times in which we are living and we have to get the situation turned around or we are headed for certain disaster. Yet, last year, as was noted, the President's budget when it was put on the floor of the Senate did not garner a single vote here--not a single vote. It was 97 to 0. It was unanimously rejected by the Senate, Members on both sides voting against it. This year one would think, OK, the situation has gotten much worse. Our fiscal situation has deteriorated even more. The amount of debt we have racked up is continuing to accumulate. We thought perhaps this year we would see a budget that actually did address these problems, but, no, we have a budget that is filled with more spending, more debt, and higher taxes at a time literally when we need to be tackling spending, we need to be taking on saving Social Security and Medicare for the next generation, and doing something to create economic growth and get jobs created for American workers. What is disappointing is not just the fact that the spending and debt situation is out of control but also the impact it has on the economy. The Senator from Alabama knows full well, because we both have studied this subject, that when we look at the research that has been done with regard to the impact of spending on debt and economic job creation, when we achieve a certain level or arrive at a certain level of debt as a percentage of the economy--90 percent is the threshold and it costs about a percentage point of economic growth every year, which means fewer jobs, and in this case about a million fewer jobs, in our economy. So the high, sustained levels, chronic high levels of debt and spending are directly impacting our economy's ability to get out of this cycle we are in and to start growing and expanding again and creating jobs.

Mr. THUNE. We yield our time.

Mr. THUNE. I think it is very clear. I think if you look at, as the Senator said, the debt as a percent of GDP--now over 100 percent; think about that--this is the highest level of debt, highest level of spending as a percentage of our GDP that we have seen literally since the end of World War II. We have not seen anything that rivals it. We have seen now 4 years in a row where we have run trillion-dollar-plus deficits, and we have added, as was said earlier, nearly $5 trillion to the debt since this President took office. But when you get that kind of debt level sustained over time, it does have a direct impact on jobs and the economy, and I believe we are paying a price for that right now. You can look at what is happening, obviously, with the high levels of debt and the impact it is having on countries in Europe. So this whole idea with the President producing his budget and not taking that issue on, not doing anything substantial or meaningful with regard to spending or debt, and then adding to it, and making matters even worse, raising taxes by almost $2 trillion--it seems like a most natural instinct. It is just in their DNA. Everything has to be about raising taxes. And, clearly, that is not the solution. We all know that. In fact, we need to create policies that will be conducive to economic growth and job creation in this country. Raising taxes on investment, which is what this budget does--by the way, it would raise capital gains tax rates from 15 percent to 20 percent right away, and then if you are hit by the Buffett rule, it would go up to 30 percent. It would raise the dividend tax rates from 15 percent to up over 39 percent--almost triple the tax on dividends in this country, which, incidentally, have already been taxed at the corporate business level. So you are talking about almost tripling the tax rate that Americans are going to have to pay on investment income. Then you look at the ObamaCare taxes that would kick in, the 3.8 percent on investment income, you add that and you start getting to a marginal income tax rate that is up in the 43, 44-percent range. It is very hard to argue that can be anything but awful when it comes to jobs. The entire budget--from the failure to address spending and debt, the failure to take on saving Social Security and Medicare by reforming our entitlement programs; and it seems as though the constant reliance on taxes is their answer to everything--could not be a worse budget for the American people. It could not be a worse budget for the economy. It could not be a worse budget for jobs. And it certainly could not be a worse budget for seniors, as we continue to watch Medicare and Social Security cascade further and further toward bankruptcy. It is a bust as far as I am concerned. I think that is why people on both sides and people in the media and the American people get it. It is time for this administration to get serious because these are serious times. When you are going to do big things, you need Presidential leadership. There are 100 Senators, 435 Members of the House of Representatives, 535 of us in all. There is only one President, one person who can sign a bill into law, one person who can engage the American public and the Congress in a way that will help us solve these big problems and tackle the challenges we face as a Nation right now. This budget does none of that.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member on the Budget Committee for engaging in this discussion, and I am anxious to hear from our colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte. She was there this morning and was able to ask questions of the witness, the panel we had in front of the Budget Committee. I guess what struck me about listening to that discussion was just the evasiveness we had from Mr. Zients and, in fact, as the Senator from Alabama has mentioned, his failure to respond to very direct questions--not questions that are trick questions, questions that are just a matter of the facts. I think what I was struck by too is that when he was asked about whether the administration wanted Majority Leader Reid to bring the President's budget to the floor, he could not give a direct answer, and his comments indicated that they would not be calling on the majority leader to bring the President's budget before the Senate. The other thing I was struck by is that the President's own budget chief could not confirm or verify that the President has added already about $5 trillion to the debt since taking office. Those were both things that seemed like very straightforward questions and should have been very straightforward answers. The fact is it is very difficult for him or any other official in this administration to defend this budget. This budget is not a serious budget, and even people on the other side, people in the media have all passed judgment and basically said that this is not the kind of budget that takes on the challenges the country faces. I would say to my colleagues that it is hard to take this seriously when they aren't serious about it, but they ought to be because these are serious times. We live in a time where we are running a $15 trillion debt. This budget would add another $11 trillion to that debt over the next 10 years. We are living in a time when we have European countries that are on the verge of fiscal collapse with regard to their economic and fiscal situations, much of which we are watching on a daily basis unfold in front of us and what that might mean for our country, and hopefully there is something instructive about that because clearly we need to be taking a page out of what is happening there and getting our house in order now. We have made promises to the American people that we can't keep. We need to reform our entitlement programs. And that probably more than anything else was the biggest disappointment in the President's budget because it is the fourth year in a row where he has proposed a budget that doesn't do anything to address the fundamental drivers of Federal spending, and by that I mean the mandatory part of the budget; that is, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP. All of those different programs represent today, with interest on the debt, about 64 percent of all Federal spending. At the end of the 10-year period, they would represent 78 percent of all Federal spending. So this budget is a dramatic increase in the amount we are spending on various programs. That is what is driving Federal spending today, that is what will drive Federal spending into the future, and that is why a failure and a lack of leadership when it comes to the issue of entitlement reform is so disturbing, and it really is a missed opportunity. I understand that this is an election year. Everybody says this is a campaign document, this is a political document. That does not absolve the President or us of the responsibility we have to the American people to start making some decisions around here that will get this country back on the right fiscal track. When you propose a budget that spends literally $47 trillion over the next 10 years, which is basically what we are talking about here, then you have not done much to bend the spending curve in the right direction. So I would strongly disagree with Mr. Zients' statement today that this is a ``very tight budget''--that is how I think he described it. We have Governors around the country who are making some tough decisions to balance their State budget. The Federal Government ought to do the same. South Dakota is a good example of that. We made some difficult decisions this last year, and as a consequence of that, our budget situation is much better this year, but it is because they had the courage to step forward and do some things that needed to be done. The budget proposed by the President fails to rein in government spending and balance the budget. As I said, it adds $11 trillion to the national debt, which will reach--if my colleagues can believe this-- nearly $26 trillion by the end of the decade under the proposal the President put forward. I could go on, but I would say to my colleague from Alabama and to my colleague from New Hampshire that based upon what we heard this morning, I guess I don't feel very reassured that this administration gets it. The President's budget submission clearly was an example that they don't get it, and the defense of it this morning that we heard in front of the Budget Committee certainly reinforced that impression with me. But I would be interested in knowing what the Senator from New Hampshire, who was there and able to question the panelists, including the OMB Director, thought based on the testimony we heard this morning.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, there is an old political axiom that is attributed to Thomas Jefferson, more recently to Gerald Ford, that says: A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away. Those words took on a whole new meaning this last week when we found out the Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, Kathleen Sebelius, was issuing new regulations with regard to the health care act that passed last year that would apply to religious-affiliated universities, charities, and hospitals. I think we have to remember exactly why it was that many of our forefathers came to this country in the first place. They came, in many cases, because they were trying to get away from religious persecution in their homelands. So they came to the United States with the desire to start anew and to assert that in this new government they formed that they would protect freedoms, basic freedoms, such as religious liberty. So in the Declaration of Independence they said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are [the rights to] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.--[In order] to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. So that was a foundational principle of our democracy, and it was enshrined, when they wrote the Constitution, in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, when they said: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . It was the very first right they enshrined in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States. That was the weight they attached to the important issue of religious liberty, and it was consistent with the statement in the Declaration of Independence, where it says that those rights are endowed by our Creator. They are not given to us by a State. They are not given to us by government. They are something that is endowed by our Creator. The government is here to protect those rights. So when this issue popped up on many people's radar screen--and, of course, it has been percolating out there for quite a while, but there had been an opportunity to weigh in and to provide comments, with the hope that the Department of Health and Human Services would come to the right conclusion and exempt religious-affiliated schools, hospitals, and charities--when that was not going to be the case and they were going to require these very organizations to do something that violated their consciences and violated the teachings and the practices of their faith, many people across this country--we have all heard from them-- got very engaged on this issue. It seems to me, at least, there is a very simple answer to this; that is, the administration could go back and revisit this issue and more broadly make this exemption not just for churches--which is where it is today--but also for church schools, church hospitals, church universities. It was interesting, Tuesday morning the minority leader in the Senate, Senator McConnell, was out here talking about this issue, and he mentioned: One out of six patients in America is treated at a Catholic hospital. Catholic Charities is the largest private provider of social services to poor children, families, and individuals in America. The Catholic Church runs the largest network of private schools in the country. He goes on to say: These institutions have thrived because they have been allowed to freely pursue their religious convictions in a country that, until now, respected their constitutional right to do so. He went on to say in that statement: If the rights of some are not protected, the rights of all are in danger. I think what has many of the churches across this country and many of the universities and many of the hospitals concerned about is that this is going to become a finalized regulation. The proponents of the regulation are saying there is a year to comply with it. I would submit to you that asking people in this country to check their principles at the door not now but a year from now is not making any kind of an accommodation. This needs to be reversed. This is clearly a violation of religious liberty, the protection and right we have in the first amendment of our Constitution in our Bill of Rights, and I hope the administration will do the right thing and acknowledge that they have made a mistake, that they have gone too far, that they have overreached, that they have treaded in an area they should not tread and make this right. The way to make this right is to reverse this decision. Some have argued: What is that going to mean? Does that mean people in this country are not going to have access to contraceptive services? The answer to that is absolutely not. Contraception would be widely available. It is just that religious-affiliated employers would not be forced to fund this coverage which violates the tenants of their faith. It does not have anything to do with contraception. It does not have anything to do with that issue at all. What it has to do with is the issue of religious liberty and whether we are going to respect that or are we going to allow that to be eroded, and who knows where this goes next. The other point I would make is, this is also, I think, an example of what happens when you get a government that is so big it can give you everything you want but also big enough to take it all away. There are a lot of people who, when this was debated, when the affordable care act was debated, argued--myself included--this would lead to government running more of our lives, making more decisions, intruding more, having more control, and making decisions with regard to people's health care. I would submit this is an example--and perhaps example No. 1--of that very fact. What we are seeing now is, the affordable care act--as it gets implemented, we are giving more and more power to the Federal Government, and when we do that, when big government gets bigger and bigger, it has more latitude when it comes to running over the rights of ordinary Americans. This is a perfect example of that. I could go down the list of other regulations. I have come down to the floor many times to talk about regulatory overreach, excessive regulations that go way beyond common sense, that do not deal with issues of public health and safety but are simply regulations for regulation's sake. People have heard me come down and talk about the Department of Labor's efforts now to regulate the young people who work on family farms and ranches and the overly proscriptive way in which they are trying to keep young people from performing duties they learned growing up that they are trained to do, that contribute to the overall success and prosperity of family farms and ranches. The Department of Labor's proposal right now would restrict young people from working at elevations that are more than 6 feet, from working with farm animals that are more than 6 months old, from working around grain elevators or stockyards or operating certain kinds of equipment, many pieces of equipment, types of equipment that are fairly standard on a farming operation. It strikes at the very heart of what makes a family farm and ranch operation tick. It is an assault on the heartland of this country and the culture and values that have helped shape it and make it great. So this issue of regulatory overreach and big government is an issue that I think is symbolized by this current debate. What we are having is a debate about the reach of government to where they can start coming up with regulations under the new health care law that clearly violate the religious liberty protections that are afforded for people in this country under the first amendment and which I think our Founders, if they were around today, would find incredibly offensive. This is an affront, an assault on these very liberties. It is an assault on our Bill of Rights, our Constitution. It is something the administration should walk back from and make right. They can do that very simply by reversing this or widening or broadening this exemption to cover religious-affiliated schools, universities and charities. And they could do that right now. I would hope that would be the case. If it is not, there is legislation that has been proposed here. A number of my colleagues have already filed bills. In fact, Senator Blunt was down here earlier today and asked to call up an amendment that would address this issue. It was objected to on the grounds that it is not related to the underlying bill, the highway bill. Well, if it is not related to the highway bill, then let's provide an opportunity for Congress to weigh in on this. I can tell you one thing, the American people are weighing in on this. This Congress of the United States, as their representatives, needs to stand for the American people and, more importantly, needs to defend the Constitution of the United States. If the administration is going to take this step, and if the administration is not going to walk back from this, this Congress of the United States needs to be heard. There will be numerous attempts until that opportunity is presented by my colleagues and me to make sure this wrong is fixed, is corrected, and that the religious liberties for which our Founders came to this country and for which so many have fought and died over the years to defend are protected, and those rights that are enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and our Bill of Rights are protected for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to laud the actions of the House of Representatives which voted to repeal the CLASS long-term care entitlement program that was created by the health care law. The vote yesterday in the House of Representatives was 267 in favor of repeal. It was a bipartisan vote. It was a clear, I think, message that this is a piece of legislation that needs to be taken off the books. It was a disaster in the making from the very beginning. Many of us tried to predict that ultimately this program was destined to fail. The vote in the House of Representatives yesterday to repeal this insolvent program I hope will pave the way for the Senate to follow suit. My fear has been all along that if we do not get this program off the books, at some point there will be an attempt to resurrect it. That would be the absolute worst outcome and worst scenario for the American taxpayer because this is a program that, even before it was voted on and added to the health care bill, was predicted would fail. The Congressional Budget Office said it would run deficits in the outyears. The Actuary at the Health and Human Services Department predicted that this was a program that actuarially was unsound, could not be viable in the long run. It was here in the last few months that finally the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, came out and said, ``I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation.'' That was a statement she made back in the middle of October. So even the person who was tasked with implementing this program has now said there is no viable path forward for CLASS. We ought to get this off the books. It was, in fact, a pay-for in the health care bill. It was designed to help understate the cost of the health care bill. It front-end-loaded premiums, got revenue in the door early, knowing full well that when the demands for payments came later on that it was going to be upside down, and it was clearly a program that I think, by any account, all who observed this process closely knew just flat out this would not work. But what was done--it obscured the cost of the health care bill and helped it to sort of balance out because it was front-end loaded, saw revenues come in in the early years before payments would have to go out in the outyears. I am hopeful the Senate will take the action that was taken by the House of Representatives and end this once and for all. We have people on both sides of the aisle who have come to that conclusion. There was a lot of debate, even in the runup, the lead-up to the health care bill, about how this would not work. I offered an amendment during the health care debate to strip it. We had 10 Democrats at the time who voted with me on that amendment. Many of them made statements regarding this legislation and the implications if it were to pass. In fact, the Senator from North Dakota, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said at the time that this is ``a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.'' He vowed to block its inclusion in the Senate bill. It ended up in the Senate bill and ended up in the overall bill, so to this day it is still a part of the health care legislation but a part that needs to be stripped out if we are going to do what is in the best interests of the American taxpayer and not put yet another unfunded liability on the backs of our children and grandchildren. We have a lot of bipartisan support for repealing it. There are a lot of people who have weighed in against this, who know it will not work. We have an awful lot of outside interests as well who have observed, now, that this is not something that is sustainable over time. In fact, a lot of editorial pages around the country, newspapers have weighed in on this. The Washington Post: . . . a new gimmick that has been designed to pretend the health reform is fully paid for. That is something they said back when this was being debated. The Wall Street Journal: Known by the acronym CLASS, the long-term care insurance program for nursing homes and the like was grafted onto the health-care bill mostly to hide that bill's true costs. It has been described as ``a budgetary time bomb.'' It seems to make perfect sense to me, and I hope to many of my colleagues, that we take the steps necessary to get this program off the books once and for all. In trying to justify this, there are people who say we ought to keep it on the books in case we figure out a way to go forward with it, to implement it. It does not work. It cannot work. That has been known from the very outset. I want to mention something else the Actuary, Rick Foster, said prior to it being voted on. He said: Thirty-six years of actuarial experience lead me to believe that this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies to continue. I want to repeat that. This is from the person who studies the trends and makes sure, or tries to make sure, these programs are actuarially sound. Thirty-six years of actuarial experience lead me to believe that this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies to continue. That was the warning that was issued way before the vote ever occurred on the CLASS Act. He described it as `` . . . a classic `assessment spiral' or `insurance death spiral.' '' Those are words he used to describe this. The program is intended to be ``actuarially'' sound but at first glance this goal may be impossible. These were all statements made by the Actuary. Those of us who were here at the time and were concerned about this being included in the health care bill came to the floor and, as I said, I offered an amendment to strip it. It came close to getting the necessary votes but unfortunately came short. It had broad bipartisan support but we recognized at the time this thing was destined to fail. Now we have all this, the studies that have been done since, that validate that by the objective third-party validators, if you will, by the HHS Actuary. It seems to me at least that the American taxpayers, the American people deserve to know where their elected officials stand on the CLASS Act. Are they for keeping this unviable, insolvent, actuarially unsound provision in the health care bill, which now even those who are tasked with implementing it--the Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius--have said there is no viable path forward for its implementation? Are we going to continue to keep this around? Or are we going to have a vote here in the Senate to put an end to this once and for all? I hope the majority leader, Senator Reid, will allow us to get this up for a vote. It has been passed in the House of Representatives. It is very clear based on not only all the actuarial evidence but all those who have looked at it who are tasked with trying to put it into practice that it is not going to work. I hope before this goes any further we will get a vote here in the Senate that will echo what happened in the House of Representatives and that we will do the right thing by the American taxpayer and get rid of a program that, if it ever is resurrected, if it ever is reincarnated in some form, would be a terrible drain on American taxpayers, not only today but well into the future, and represent yet another unfunded liability that we will put on the backs of our children and grandchildren. It is time to end the CLASS Act once and for all. I am going to continue to press for a vote on this and I hope Majority Leader Reid will allow us to get a vote on repeal of the CLASS Act so the American people do know exactly where their elected officials stand and whether they are going to stand on the side of the taxpayer, stand on the side of common sense, or stand on the side of using this budgetary gimmick to understate the cost of the health care bill and perhaps at some point in the future put a plan in place that literally is not going to work, is only going to continue to lead us on the pathway to bankruptcy. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.