Floor Statements

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The combination of those things is only going to cost jobs.

I yield the floor.

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

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.

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

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. 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.]

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. President, I yield the floor.

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. 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.

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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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